Sitting of 19 January 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 24 January.

  CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Tuesday 24 January at Seven o'clock.

  AVON LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 24 January at Seven o'clock.

  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 26 January.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Liquid Milk
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the volume and value of liquid milk made available annually to the United Kingdom confectionery industry; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): The predominant use of liquid milk bought by the confectionery industry is for the manufacture of chocolate crumb. In 1988 about 228 million litres, worth about £40 million, was supplied for this purpose.
    Mr. GregoryI am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Is it not ridiculous that while the confectionery industry would like to use more liquid milk and British farmers would like to supply it, major manufacturers such as Rowntree are prohibited from obtaining the amount that they would like? The manufacturer of great British products such as Kit Kat has had to modify its machinery, at a cost of over £1 million, to take non-liquid milk. Will my hon. Friend look at this again and boost the amount of liquid milk available to the great British confectionery industry?
    Mr. Thompson: I appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend works for the great British confectionery industry at Question Time after Question Time. He does a good job. I do not think that the confectionery industry in general suffers from a shortage of liquid milk. The allocation of milk for chocolate crumb takes priority over many other uses, including territorial cheese. However, I am aware of some local problems but it is for the industry to readjust in the new climate of decreasing lakes and mountains.
    Mr. Martlew: Does the Minister agree that the Milk Marketing Board is taking advantage of shortages in manufacturing to push up the prices? Is it not a disgrace that Dairy Crest, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Milk Marketing Board, is now on the board of the Dairy Trade Federation which negotiates prices with the Milk Marketing Board? Will the Minister stop looking after farmers' interests and start looking after the interests of consumers?
    Mr. Thompson: For the whole of agriculture the consumer is paramount because without the consumer nothing happens. The fact that the dairy industry leads in Europe is indicative of the consideration that the dairy trade gives to the consumer and to consumers' interests. Nevertheless, the market is becoming more and more competitive for milk and milk products. That is good, because rather than putting milk and milk products into intervention they should be allowed to find their own level in the market. I do not wish to interfere in normal trade between the various sections of the milk industry.
    Mr. Paice: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what percentage of the forthcoming rise in the price of milk will go to the farmer and how much will be absorbed by the trade?
    Mr. Thompson: A percentage always goes to the farmer—[Interruption.]—and we are under constant pressure from Opposition Members, who are now laughing so gaily, to continue doorstep delivery. Some of the increase must go to pay the man who delivers the milk to our doorstep, often before we go to work.

    British Poultry Federation
    Mr. Barron: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the British Poultry Federation; and what matters were discussed.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. MacGregor): My hon. Friends last met representatives of the British Poultry Federation on 23 and 29 November and 18 December 1988, to discuss consumer interests and animal welfare.
    Mr. Barron: Has anyone in the Minister's Department explained to the federation, and will the Minister explain to the House, why his Department has refused to accept its statutory responsibility under section 8 of the Food Act 1984 to prosecute egg and poultry producers who have been selling eggs and poultry contaminated with salmonella?
    Mr. MacGregor: The action that we have taken also relates to poultry feed plants. Our vets go to look at the situation, particularly where investigations are required, and tell the companies what work is required to put the situation right. They then go back and look at the situation again. In almost every case, the situation has been put right. The important point is whether there is a case and sufficient evidence to carry through a prosecution; so far, we have been advised that there is not.
    Mr. Marland: Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on what would have been the effect on the taxpayer, the consumer and the market, if the rescue package that he so quickly announced after the crisis had not been launched?
    Mr. MacGregor: There are later questions on the Order Paper about this. As I shall indicate later, this has been a cost-effective scheme for the taxpayer. The advertisements to indicate the measure of risk involved in relations salmonella in eggs, the chief medical officer's advice, the 15 measures that I am taking to deal with the problem at the production end and the two steps to stabilise the market have all been very much in the consumer's interest. The consumer benefits from continuity of supply and from the removal of the aging eggs. The steps that we took helped to restore stability to the market quickly.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister confirm the recent New Scientist report that the Government were directly responsible for cutting the number of scientists doing research into salmonella in poultry and eggs? If that report is true, should not more heads roll than that of the former Under-Secretary of State for Health?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have not seen that particular report, but if it refers to the research at Bristol, I should point out
    468
    that that decision was taken by the Agricultural and Food Research Council because it believed that exploitation in the market place was now required. Consultation is now taking place with interested companies to see whether such exploitation can take place.
    However, the funds which may not be used to continue that research will be diverted to other microbiological research. It is a question of the priorities set by the AFRC. I have just received the report of a working party that we set up last autumn, following the information given to the Department of Health, to consider what extra research and development might be required on salmonella and I shall consider that immediately.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend educate the House a little further on the knotty question of salmonella by explaining that vegetarians are also at risk because sprouting beans and even watercress are major carriers of salmonella? In that context, the Norwich city council leaflet and advertisement at Christmas, showing a nut roast and saying that nut roasts do not grow salmonella alongside a defrosting turkey—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am interested in all this, but was it discussed with the British Poultry Federation?
    Miss Nicholson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that the public has been led by the media to believe that salmonella is confined to animal protein products. I should like my right hon. Friend to tell the House that that is not true. Salmonella is part of the food chain and British food producers do their utmost to get rid of it. In that context, British poultry products are among the cleanest, the cheapest and the best protein sources.
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For as long as anyone can remember salmonella has been a major problem in food in all countries. It is in the environment and despite all our efforts it is not possible to eradicate it. That is why everyone takes steps—at all points in the production chain and also when cooking food—to minimise the risk of salmonella.
    My hon. Friend is right. Salmonella is certainly not confined to eggs. There are 2,000 different strains of salmonella. In the middle of last year we faced evidence which convinced us that there were more cases of food poisoning from one particular strain. When that was identified and linked with eggs, we took action. However, my hon. Friend is right and the same situation applies in other countries.
    Mr. Beggs: When the Secretary of State met the British Poultry Federation did he discuss the possibility of stopping the inclusion of recycled poultry offal and protein in feed for the poultry industry? What would be the additional cost to the consumer of a dozen eggs if we removed recycled protein in poultry feed and replaced it with vegetable protein?
    Mr. MacGregor: That matter was not discussed at the last meeting, to which I referred earlier. We are considering the matter, but it is important that everyone should understand that any recycled material has to undergo heat treatment and other processes to ensure that salmonella is dealt with. The main problem with salmonella in general, and with the particular strain that

    469
    has caused the most recent problem, is that it often arises at subsequent points because salmonella is in the environment.
    Mr. Hunter: In the course of his discussions with the British Poultry Federation did my right hon. Friend discuss the federation's egg improvement scheme and what was his reaction to it?
    Mr. MacGregor: That scheme was put to me in the middle of December. We considered it and I discussed it informally with one or two federation members. However, I do not believe that the scheme would have been compatible with European Community legislation.
    Mr. David Clark: As the Minister has admitted in a parliamentary answer that there is no statutory reason for witholding information, why will he not give the House details of the 21 protein processing plants which were found to be supplying salmonella-contaminated feed to the egg and poultry industry? Surely we have the right to know the guilty parties.
    Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I give as much information as I can to the House, to the Select Committee on Agriculture and in many other ways on all these matters. However, in those cases we must observe commercial confidentiality and other matters of that kind in fulfilling our statutory responsibilities where it has been made clear that the identification of plants will not be divulged.

    Sausages
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set quality and content standards that will allow the traditional British sausage to be exported to the European Community and other countries in Europe which at present prohibit the import of United Kingdom sausages on content, quality or labelling grounds.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Richard Ryder): The British sausage is a traditional product designed for the home market. It is enjoyed here, and I see no reason why changes should be made to it. I know that the product is enjoyed elsewhere in the EEC, and I hope that the export activities of our sausage manufacturers and retailers will mean that this is increasingly the case.
    Mr. Speller: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is Food from Britain year and that the best British meal is the British breakfast? Is he also aware that the British banger is a part of that, but under our current legislation less than one-third of a pork sausage needs to be pork and only 25 per cent. of a beef sausage must be beef? If we are to succeed in Europe, as we should, and as our meat producers wish, we require a standard which makes the word follow the name so that beef is beef and pork is pork, and never the content shall be rubbish.
    Mr. Ryder: The Ministry is in regular touch with the trade interests concerned. We have not been informed of any insurmountable difficulties encountered by manufacturers or retailers in marketing the product in the EEC. If any such difficulties are brought to our attention we shall pursue the matter at once with the relevant authorities.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that we produce the finest bangers in the world? Is he also aware that when foreigners come here from abroad they like British bangers and mash? It is high time that the Minister made it clear that that is the position so we do not have stupid questions like this one.
    Mr. Ryder: If British sausage retailers or manufacturers want to advertise their product on British or European television, the hon. Gentleman is the right man to do that for them, but any such advertisement would need to be watched with the television volume turned down.

    Environmentally Sensitive Areas
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many environmentally sensitive areas have now received payments; and what the total estimated expenditure will be for 1988.
    Mr. Ryder: There are 10 environmentally sensitive areas in England in which payments will be made in the financial year 1988–89. Those payments are estimated to amount to £8·3 million in total. Figures for the calendar year are not available.
    Mr. Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that ESAs have made a valuable contribution to the Government's green policies and demonstrate the Government's care of the countryside? Can my hon. Friend tell the House how many farmers in environmentally sensitive areas who have not claimed ESA money have lost farm improvement grants? What does my hon. Friend intend to do about that when he considers the new conservation grant scheme?
    Mr. Ryder: Statistics are not readily available, but outright refusal has been necessary in only a few cases. All agricultural improvement scheme applications in ESAs are examined from environmental viewpoints. Where there appears to be a risk of harm to the environment, farmers are advised how their plans can be modified to be compatible with ESA objectives.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What plans are there to extend the number of ESAs, and what consideration is being given to extending them to those areas that still have restrictions on sheep movements as a result of the Chernobyl fallout?
    Mr. Ryder: We shall be reviewing the ESAs in 1991 and 1992 when we shall consider existing boundaries and the possibility of expanding the number of ESAs. On the specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman, we do not foresee any particular changes at present.
    Sir Charles Morrison: To assess the benefit or otherwise of ESAs it is clearly important that they should be adequately monitored. Is my hon. Friend sure that enough manpower and money to finance that manpower is being made available for that purpose?
    Mr. Ryder: Yes, Sir.

    Irish Meat
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received any representations concerning the import of Irish meat; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: Since my right hon. Friend replied on 22 December to the hon. Gentleman's private notice question on this matter, various hon. Members have put down related written questions which have been answered.
    Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister elaborate a little more on the evidence that he has about how contaminated meat came in from Ireland and, in particular, how contaminated meat appears to have been stamped with Irish veterinary inspection stamps as being fit when it was not?
    Mr. Thompson: The last correspondence that we had from the Irish Republic was on 12 January when it gave us a full report of its investigations into that particular meat consignment. We are not entirely satisfied with all those explanations and have asked for further details. There were 19 cases of meat that we considered unfit coming from Ireland in 1988 and we have followed up each of those.
    Mr Nicholas Bennett: What examination is made of Irish meat that has been trans-shipped across the United Kingdom to a third country? Can my hon. Friend guarantee that no Irish meat so trans-shipped finds its way into the United Kingdom market?
    Mr. Thompson: Irish beef that is trans-shipped across the United Kingdom from Ireland to a third country obviously cannot impinge upon public health in Britain. Meat that is shipped into Britain receives a veterinary certificate from the country from which it emanates. The documents are inspected by the port health authority and the local environmental health officers are diligent, as they were in Truro. Companies have their own rigorous inspection because they live by selling meat and if there is any shadow of doubt about the quality of their products they will lose customers. In addition, shop inspectors, environmental health officers and trading standards officers check meat within various retail and wholesale outlets.
    Mr. William Ross: Is the Minister aware that Newry is the fourth largest point for the export of food into Great Britain? As Northern Ireland is also a food exporter, very little food from the Republic stays in Northern Ireland and a large part travels on to Scotland, England, and elsewhere and thus passes through the three legal jurisdictions of the United Kingdom, all of which have different food hygiene laws. Will the Minister ensure that the forthcoming food Bill will cover the entire United Kingdom so that the problems currently experienced by enforcement and health officers in Northern Ireland in citing British case law when prosecuting in Northern Ireland will no longer be an inhibiting factor?
    Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and it is one that we are examining in relation to the forthcoming food Bill. Although standards in Northern Ireland, Scotland and England are equally high, it is important that they are easily understood both by traders and by lawyers in each country, and we shall be working towards that in any new legislation.
    Mr. Redwood: Is the Minister satisfied with current subsidy arrangements, which appear considerably to favour the Irish in exporting their meat to this country? Is he satisfied also that those subsidy arrangements are well administered?
    Mr. Thompson: That is a different question.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Is the Minister aware that when his right hon. Friend the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food addressed the House on 21 December 1988 he made several factually incorrect statements? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his Department does not require systematic inspection of all meat imports, and that only the most cursory and inadequate examination is undertaken by an understaffed and overworked environmental health service under its general obligations? Will the Minister act on the warning given by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers that
    "contaminated imports are being sent elsewhere in the United Kingdon"?
    Or does he not really care about the interests of consumers?
    Mr. Thompson: I care about consumers, and about the excellent work done by environmental health officers in indentifying contaminated meat entering Cornwall and preventing any disease that might have emanated from it. My right hon. Friend said that port health authorities carefully examine all documentation. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that perhaps only 5 or 6 per cent. of the meat coming within a port authority's responsibility is inspected, but consignments carry a veterinary certificate from the country of origin, which is keen to export its meat.
    As I said, inspections are undertaken by the port health authority. The particular consignment of meat entering Truro, to which reference has been made, was examined by local environmental health officers in both London and Truro. Companies also have their own inspectors, and environmental health officers are good at inspections in their own districts. I have nothing but good words to say about environmental health officers. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that they are hard-pressed and harassed. They do a good job calmly and efficiently.
    Mr. Redwood: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister be kind enough to send me a written answer—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. It is a question to the Minister.

    River Pollution
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of incidents of river pollution caused by nitrates in the last year.
    Mr. Ryder: Information for 1988 is not yet available. In 1987 mineral fertilisers caused 18 incidents.
    Mr. Wardell: In view of the Prime Minister's welcome, albeit recent, conversion to the importance of environmental matters, does the Minister agree that it is not enough to prosecute offenders against the environment? Should not his Department do far more to assist agriculture systems that entail a lower reliance on artificial nitrogenous fertilisers?
    Mr. Ryder: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that only a small proportion of nitrate pollution comes directly from fertilisers. The Government are acting on that front. Even if nitrate fertilisers were banned today we should still

    473
    have nitrate pollution in 40 or 50 years' time, because the worst form of such pollution is connected with the ploughing up of old grassland. In the immediate aftermath of the war, in the 1950s, a large amount of grassland was ploughed up for arable use, and that is what has caused a good deal of the present pollution.
    Mr. Lord: Has my hon. Friend seen the results of the research by the Rothamsted research institute? That research clearly shows that the problems caused by nitrates in water can best be improved through sensible modifications to current farming practice. Will my hon. Friend do his best to encourage farmers to put those alterations into operation, and resist demands for hasty or draconian measures that might do much more harm than good?
    Mr. Ryder: I have read the Rothamsted report, and the advice that it gives. It is absolutely correct—that nitrogen fertilisers should not be applied in the autumn, that wherever possible the soil should not be left bare during the winter and that winter-sown crops should be sown early in the autumn. If a spring crop is to be sown, a winter catch crop should be grown. That advice should be followed by farmers if the problems to which the hon. Gentleman refers are to be reduced.
    Ms. Quin: In view of the concern about nitrates, will the Minister consider making the code of farming practice on nitrates compulsory rather than voluntary? Will he also undertake to increase the amount of money devoted to research on the subject?
    Mr. Ryder: We are considering that in the light of the desk studies.
    Mr. Gale: When my hon. Friend is very properly considering nitrate levels, will he take into account the fact that it takes 20 years for nitrates spread on the land to filter through to aquifers? Will he take particular account of the fact that areas such as Thanet have very high natural nitrate levels in the soil, and will he make absolutely certain that the farming community does not carry the can for geological factors not under its control?
    Mr. Ryder: All those points will be taken into account.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: May I seriously challenge the Minister's earlier explanation about nitrates in water? He said that the problem was to do with grassland. Is it not strange that high nitrate levels in water supplies occur in the very areas where fertiliser usage is at its most intense?
    Mr. Ryder: That is correct, but it is also true that those areas are in the parts of Britain where there was the most ploughing up of grassland in the immediate aftermath of the war.

    Eggs
    Mr. Boswell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome to date of the short-term action to stabilise the egg market announced by him on 19 December.
    Mr. Cummings: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the take-up of the payment to egg packers for the destruction of surplus eggs announced on 19 December 1988.
    Mr. MacGregor: I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the schemes that I announced on 19 December, together with the Government's advertisements, have made an important contribution to restoring stability and confidence in the egg market, and have achieved their objectives with much lower costs to the taxpayer than the maximum sum for which provision was originally made. Final figures are not yet available, but I hope that the total number of cases of eggs involved will not exceed 300,000—which is 108 million eggs—and probably fewer than 450,000 hens will be culled under the scheme.
    Mr. Boswell: Is not my right hon. Friend to be congratulated, rather than pilloried, on introducing a scheme at very short notice which—at a lower cost to the taxpayer than anticipated, because of the modest take-up—has nevertheless stabilised a catastrophic market to the benefit of both producers and consumers?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that some of the comments have missed two points. First, to restore some confidence to the market, it was necessary to be clear that we would be prepared to take what was then estimated to be the total surplus of eggs on the market. It was necessary to devise a bold scheme to give back confidence. Secondly, a crucial element was the prices offered for both eggs and hens. In the case of eggs it was necessary to put a floor in the market, covering only the cost of feedstuffs to producers.
    The moment the market picked up, the schemes would no longer be necessary. They were designed to he cost-effective and yet to achieve the objective of bringing back some stability to a market that was in chaos. I believe that that action had a great deal to do with restoring confidence, and that if it had not been taken many small producers would have run into serious difficulties through no fault of their own. Some would undoubtedly have gone bankrupt.
    Mr. Cummings: What plans does the Minister have to reduce our dependency on the battery system and to encourage the keeping of smaller flocks of free-range hens in a programme of mixed farming?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman's question relates to salmonella. There is no evidence that there is any difference in the incidence of salmonella in free-range systems compared with battery systems. Therefore, it is misleading to suggest that one should opt for one particular system, believing that that would have an impact on salmonella. There is no doubt that the battery hen system, for which we have strong welfare codes, has made a major contribution to the consumer in terms of the safety and hygiene of eggs and providing sufficient eggs at a cheap price.
    Mr. Churchill: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure the proper quality of the food that is fed to chickens to minimise the possibility of infection? Secondly, what is his Department's advice about the desirability or otherwise of keeping eggs refrigerated until they are sold?
    Mr. MacGregor: On the second point, the Chief Medical Officer, the Department of Health and my Department have been giving advice on the matter for some time. We did a test market last autumn and we have been planning a major education campaign on food

    475
    hygiene in the kitchen and in catering establishments. We shall be carrying it through very shortly and it will help to reinforce all the efforts that we have made. On the first point in relation to feeding stuffs, my hon. Friend will know that I, my officials and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary have been preparing and adopting a whole series of measures since we received the first information about this new strain of salmonella and its effect in the summer. Some 15 measures have now been announced or are already in operation. Some of those measures relate to my hon. Friend's question about feeding stuffs. However, I have to add that no matter how high the standards of the feeding stuffs coming out of the plant, there is still the risk of that strain of salmonella getting into the feeding stuffs through the environment, so that problem must also be tackled.
    Dr. David Clark: The Minister quite rightly prides himself on his announcement to the House on 19 December, but why since then has he continued to announce major policy changes by his ministry through selected newspapers? Is he afraid to announce his proposals to the House because he knows that under scrutiny his proposals will be found wanting? If that is not the case, will he come to the House later today and make those announcements?
    Mr. MacGregor: Several of the announcements which have been repeated in newspapers were made in the House throughout December. There was great public interest in this matter so it was right constantly to explain what we were planning to do. I did not make any new announcements yesterday. It is interesting that information on all the measures that I announced in response to a parliamentary question yesterday was given to the House in a joint memorandum by my Department and the Department of Health to the Select Committee on Agriculture when it started its proceedings. I thought that it was right to answer the question again yesterday, so I gave the same information to the House, although the wording was slightly different. I am endeavouring to give the House all the information as soon as the decisions have been taken.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when faced with a financial hurricane, a wise man battens down the hatches immediately? Is it fair that he should then be penalised by the Government? An egg producer in my constituency slaughtered 35,000 chickens a few days before the announcement of the compensation scheme, so he will receive nothing. Will my right hon. Friend consider backdating the scheme to the day when the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) made her original speech?
    Mr. MacGregor: No, I do not think it would be right to backdate this scheme. I made that clear on 19 December, and I will give just two reasons why. First, it would be difficult to get all the evidence. Secondly, a lot of the culling that was taking place was of older hens, and some of that happens all the time. I would not think it right to use taxpayers' money for that purpose because the scheme that I introduced on the hen side was designed to deal with the young laying hens which could have had an impact on the surpluses in the months ahead. So I could not backdate the scheme in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.

    Ewes
    Mr. Rogers: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the current size of the breeding ewe flock in England and Wales.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: The most recent figure for the number of breeding ewes in England and Wales comes from the June 1988 census. It is 13·407 million ewes.
    Mr. Rogers: In the current review of the sheepmeat regime by the Council of Ministers, will Her Majesty's Government resist the abolition of the variable premium? If they fail, as is likely, will they insist on an alternative support system that will safeguard the livelihoods of upland sheep farmers?
    Mr. Thompson: There are, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, complex negotiations ahead. My right hon. Friend will be doing his best to ensure that any future regime enables the industry, including that of Northern Ireland, to prosper and gain full advantage from an excellent structure and its efficiency and expertise.
    I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). His earlier question was broader than the specific answer that I was giving. The answer to his question is that we shall also be discussing these matters in the EEC next week.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a good opportunity for the rest of Europe to appreciate the size of our ewe and lamb flock and that there are great opportunities for exporting our lamb? May we have an assurance that our industry is exploiting to the full the opportunities for lamb and mutton?
    Mr. Thompson: Our sheep and lamb exports are one of the success stories of British farming in the 1980s. Exports have increased by 77 per cent. since 1980 and Welsh lamb has rightfully taken its place as one of the delicacies of continental Europe, especially in Greece.
    Dr. Thomas: Proportionately, I probably represent more sheep than any other hon. Member—[Interruption.] This is a serious matter. Will the Minister give an assurance to the sheep farmers of the hill areas throughout the United Kingdom that he understands that to them, sheepmeat and the income derived from the EEC sheepmeat regime is a regional policy which must be maintained? What is the present negotiating position of his right hon. Friend on this issue in the Community?
    Mr. Thompson: It would be churlish of me to comment on the opening words used by the hon. Gentleman in that supplementary question by saying that that is why he is here. My right hon. Friend is aware of the importance of this industry in Wales and in the uplands of Britain. The hon. Gentleman was not in his place last night for the debate on the beef industry, when much was said about the need to be careful in our negotiations so as to maintain the efficiency and natural advantages that this country has in the sheep and beef industries.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Minister explain why the Government will not pay hill sheep subsidy in full, as they are entitled to do under the EEC rules?
    Mr. Thompson: We examine the situation each year. Again, that will be part and parcel of the complex negotiations into which we shall be entering next week.

    Milk Marketing Board
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board; and what issues he expects will be discussed.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: My right hon. Friend the Minister and I have regular contacts with the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board to discuss various issues affecting the dairy industry.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister satisfied with the quality of milk supplied to the consumer by the dairy industry? Further, what is his view about the marketing opportunities for added value products by the farmer?
    Mr. Thompson: In December my hon. Friend announced that we have achieved step 2 status for the cleanliness of our raw milk for use in pasteurised, sterilised and UHT milk and in dairy products of all sorts.

    Farm Diversification Scheme
    Mr. Moate: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the farm diversification scheme.
    Mr. Ryder: Some 1,300 applications have been received in the United Kingdom for the farm diversification capital grants that were introduced a year ago, 784 of which have been approved. The non-capital grants for enterprise feasibility studies and marketing costs, which were introduced on 1 August, have attracted 44 applications. This is an encouraging response to the scheme.
    Mr. Moate: Does my hon. Friend agree that the scheme is giving new opportunities and initiatives to farmers and growers, but that much depends on a sympathetic response from the planning authorities? Is he satisfied that the planning authorities are ready and willing to respond to the spirit of the scheme? What opportunities exist for farmers and growers to obtain guidance about the planning implications of the scheme?
    Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend is correct. We have just published guidance entitled "Planning Permission and the Farmer", which is available from HMSO bookshops. We hope that it will become a standard work to help farmers overcome the problems to which my hon. Friend referred.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Premier of Quebec.
    Mr. Blunkett: Is the Prime Minister aware of the predatory bid for Bassett Foods, which produces liquorice allsorts in my constituency, and the enormous cost accruing to it and companies in a similar position? It is costing possibly £750,000 merely to fight the bid. Is she
    478
    aware of the danger for the company, the workforce and the community? Will she consider changing her mind about bringing legislation into line with the protection that exists for competitors in other countries and overcoming the shenanigans that have surrounded the GEC bid by ensuring that any companies bidding for British firms make a substantial deposit with the Department of Trade and Industry, which would be forfeited if the bid were not successful?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has made his strong views quite clear. I think that he will be the first to understand that we must operate the law as passed by the House and as it is. A bid must therefore go before the Office of Fair Trading and then to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. There will be a big Companies Bill before the House, and I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to table amendments he will do so.
    Mr. Holt: I know that my right hon. Friend has taken a keen interest in the activities of Cleveland county council in relation to child sex abuse. Were not the shameful contributions of its Labour members exacerbated this week when the police had to intervene between two councillors who were fighting in county hall? Should we not abolish—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question must be related to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.
    Mr. Holt: I am asking the Prime Minister to give me advice on how to handle this matter. Will the Prime Minister advise me—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot ask the Prime Minister how he should handle a constituency case.
    Mr. Kinnock: Given the widespread and justifiable concern about food safety, why do the Government still refuse to prosecute companies whose processing plants have been found to be contaminated by salmonella? Why do the Government still persist in making cuts in funding for vital food research, continue to underfund and undervalue the work of environmental health officers and delay updating the regulations to take account of modern conditions and needs?
    The Prime Minister: A considerable amount of research is done by the Agricultural and Food Research Council but near-market research is a matter for companies. 'We shall concentrate on basic research in the Agricultural and Food Research Council. With regard to salmonella and other matters, the answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which received a great deal of publicity, was exhaustive and well-received.
    Mr. Kinnock: The statement by the Minister yesterday was welcome although he said 10 minutes ago—as I am sure he will acknowledge—that nothing he announced was new. Sadly, the announcement did not touch on any of the problems raised in my first question. That suggests that the Government are not yet prepared to give proper priority to the interests of the consumer. Why do the Government continue to fail in their essential duties of enforcement, research, local environmental health and modern regulations?
    The Prime Minister: I went through the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food carefully. He put together the many steps which he has taken since the matter first arose, some of which were taken before the matter received a great deal of publicity. He also put together the steps that he has taken since December. He is concerned about the consumer, as are we all. He has taken steps to introduce codes of practice and, if need be, as he made clear, we shall put them into statutory form.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: Does the Prime Minister consider that the erosion of apartheid in South Africa and its eventual abolition—an objective shared by both sides of the House—is likely to be accelerated or delayed by the attempt to use financial blackmail to prevent English Test cricketers going to that country and teaching young blacks—[Interruption.]—yes, young blacks and youngsters of all races how to play cricket? In view of the deplorable human rights record of some countries which criticise South Africa, is it not time that the question of the Gleneagles agreement was brought back to the table?
    The Prime Minister: We are signatories to the Gleneagles agreement and we have to uphold it. It is a voluntary agreement and it is for people to decide how to operate it. We must carry out our duties under it.
    Mr. Ashdown: In view of his past record and comments, will the Prime Minister say what special personal qualities she had in mind when she decided to appoint the noble lord, Lord Chalfont as deputy chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority?
    The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should even ask. Lord Chalfont knows a great deal about the subject and that is a great recommendation for him.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: In the week that the National Freight Consortium announced its stock exchange plans and underlined the success that employee shareholders have had in the progress of the company, will my right hon. Friend continue the Government's policies of supporting employee share ownership by encouraging employee share ownership schemes? Will she tell the European Commission of the value of employee share ownership as a way of involving employees in their companies and tell it what to do with the rigid, German system of Mitbestimmung?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that we wish to see wider employee ownership, both of shares in their own companies and in other companies. Our strategy is doing well.

    Broxtowe Estate
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister if she will visit the Broxtowe Residents' Association to discuss its recent ballot on the sale of the Broxtowe estate.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Allen: The Prime Minister's Office was made aware this morning that one of the families that did not vote in the ballot has been involved in the worst child sex abuse case on our records. It involved 16 children and their parents. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to
    480
    commend the work of Nottinghamshire county council's social services department in this particularly harrowing case? Will she also take the opportunity—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The same rules apply. The question must relate to the Prime Minister's responsibility.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to commend the use of the video link to ensure that evidence is given in this case? Will she speak to her colleague the Home Secretary and ensure that money is granted so that proper research can be done into child abuse and to help prevent the generation-to-generation continuation of such harrowing cases?
    The Prime Minister: This was a particularly bad case of child abuse, which was reported in the newspapers this morning. It was utterly repugnant. All child abuse cases are repugnant, but this was especially so. When one of the judges heard it, he acknowledged the excellent way in which Nottingham social services department handled this difficult case and he also complimented the foster parents on the way in which they had handled matters. I am very glad to follow that. It was one of the first cases in which video links have been used to enable children to give evidence and we are very pleased that, after recent legislation, it worked extremely well. With regard to research on child sex abuse, the Department of Health has already identified research projects on this matter and has so far allocated £160,000 to those research projects. It intends to commission further research on this in the coming year and it is discussing the research programme with the Home Office.

    Engagements
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Shaw: Has my right hon. Friend seen the good news today that the unemployment figures have come down considerably? [Interruption.] Did she have time, when reading this good news, to see the incredible level of employment that we now have? Has she reflected on the fact that that has been achieved because of the great strength in the economy and does she not think that the news should be welcomed by the whole House?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Had the news been otherwise, we should have been asked about it constantly by the Opposition. I am glad that unemployment continues to go down. It has gone down for 29 consecutive months. The numbers of—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: The numbers of the work force in employment are now at an all-time record and the percentage of the population of working age in work is higher in the United Kingdom than in France, Germany and Italy, and it is higher than the European average. It is a very good set of figures today.

    Member's Resignation (Correspondence)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what criteria she used in deciding to make public her exchange

    481
    of correspondence with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs Currie) on the latter's resignation from the Government.
    The Prime Minister: Exchanges of correspondence with resigning Ministers are published when it is considered appropriate.
    Mr. Dalyell: How come the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South was treated significantly differently from Sir Leon Brittan? Was it that he was able to negotiate the wording of the resignation letter that he received because of the promise of silence about the Prime Minister's own unmentionable misbehaviour, as reported in column 657 of Hansard on 27 January 1986.
    The Prime Minister: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is utterly wrong. [Interruption.] I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's assertions and I think that it was absolutely right to publish the recent letters on the egg matter.

    Engagement
    Mr. John Townend: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Townend: Is my hon. Friend aware of the bitterness in the Hull area about the continued closure of the container terminal, which cost £3 million? It is another victim of the national dock labour scheme, which is causing the port of Hull to wither on the vine. When will the Government take pity on the once great port of Hull, abolish the national dock labour scheme and enable Hull to compete on equal terms in a free market with Felixstowe and other North sea ports?
    The Prime Minister: I understand how strongly my hon. Friend feels about Hull and that he feels that sometimes ports outside the scheme flourish far better than those inside the scheme. I know how strongly he feels and how strongly a number of my other hon. Friends feel about it. I am sorry that I have to disappoint him, but I have nothing further to add to the statements that I have made previously on this subject.
    Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has lost her voice. I propose to call her question for her and then call the hon. member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) to read her supplementary.
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady's proxy to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Primarolo: This is the reality of job share.
    Given the Prime Minister's new-found enthusiasm—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Given the Prime Minister's new-found enthusiasm for having more women in public life and in the work force generally, may I ask her how she expects that to come about while women's pay still lags as far behind men's as it did 10 years ago and while the Government refuse to fund state nurseries or give financial help to working mothers? Or does the Prime Minister's advice to women simply consist of telling them to follow her example and find themselves a wealthy husband?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady's last remark is singularly offensive and, if I may say so, really rather cheap. I would point out that the fact that hon. Members have absolutely equal pay, regardless of whether they are hon. Gentlemans or hon. Ladies, does not increase the number of hon. Ladies in the House.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 23 JANUARY—Timetable motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill.
Third Reading of the Security Service Bill.
Motions on Scottish Housing Support Grant orders.
Details will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 24 JANUARY—Opposition Day (2nd Allotted Day, 1st half). Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The failure of MAFF to protect the consumer".
Motion on the Access to Personal Files (Social Work) (Scotland) regulations.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 25 JANUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Official Secrets Bill (1 st Day).
Motion on the Monopolies and Mergers (Performance of Functions) Order.
THURSDAY 26 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill.
FRIDAY 27 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 30 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill.
[Debate on Monday 23 January:
The Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order.
The Housing Revenue Account General Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order (SI 1988 No. 2081).]
Mr. Dobson: As my voice is also giving out and as I do not wish to call upon a spokesperson, however effective, I shall be brief.
Can the Leader of the House confirm that there will be a statement in the House on the National Health Service review before the end of the month? Can he tell us when we shall have the opportunity in Government time to debate the Fennell report on the King's Cross fire inquiry, when we shall have an opportunity in Government time to debate the deplorable state of training in this country and when he will get round to setting up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?
Mr. Wakeham: I note that the hon. Gentleman managed four questions before his voice gave out. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health plans to make a statement on the Government review of the National Health Service on Tuesday 31 January. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern about the Fennell report and the importance of the subject but I have nothing to add to what I have said to him in previous weeks.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said about training. We have had considerable discussion about that already, but, as he said, not recently. I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend to consider what plans we can make.
484
I do not believe that I can be too hopeful that we shall be able to set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—certainly not in the immediate future. I believe that officially the decision of the House is probably the best place to leave it. Some of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends wish to see me about this matter and we shall, therefore, discuss it and see whether there is any way in which we can progress.
Mr. Robert Adley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those hon. Members who may have had doubts about the Football Spectators Bill should have had those doubts dispelled last night by Mr. Clough's behaviour at Nottingham? Would my right hon. Friend, therefore, consider amending the Bill in another place so that the hooligan elements among football management should themselves be required to carry identity cards? Does he share with me the hope that those who yesterday criticised a Conservative Home Secretary for seeking to uphold the law will not today seek to praise a Socialist football manager who appears to enjoy breaking it?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall not comment in detail on a Bill which is before another House, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is clearly right for those with responsibility in football to set the right example to others. The Football Association and the police are looking into the incident at last night's match, and I cannot comment further at this stage.
Mr. James Wallace: Does the Leader of the House propose to have a debate in the near future on the Government's proposals for TV broadcasting?
Will the right hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to last week when there was a discussion about the locum work being carried out in Richmond by the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)? Will he confirm that that hon. Gentleman has 574,022 constituents to look after in the Euro-seat of Essex, North-East? Knowing how reasonably well occupied my 30,000 constituents can keep me, will the right hon. Gentleman agree to move the writ for Richmond in the near future so as to relieve that hon. Gentleman of the 79,277 constituents whom, apparently, he is temporarily trying to look after in Richmond?
Mr. Wakeham: I am aware of the widespread interest in the broadcasting White Paper. As I told the House last week, I envisage arranging a debate relatively early in February so that the House can express its views on the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman.
I am one of the North-East Essex constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who the hon. Gentleman suggested is carrying out rather a lot of work. I can confirm that my hon. Friend has a considerable capacity. He is entirely satisfying me and I know many of my neighbours in Essex. He is doing a good job.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my right hon. Friend look at early-day motions 249 and 250?
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Price Marking (Petrol) (Amendment) Order 1988 ( S.I., 1988, No. 2226), dated 20th December 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd December, be annulled.]
[That this House notes the recommendation of the Trade and Industry Select Committee that petrol prices should

485
continue to be displayed in gallon as well as litre term on boards visible from the roadside; notes that the Price Marking (Petrol) (Amendment) Order 1988 will remove this requirement with effect from 23rd January; and calls for a debate on the Order.]
They call on the Government to annul an order laid in this House on the day that it rose before Christmas, which calls on the Government to withdraw the pricing of petrol in pence per gallon. Nobody in evidence before the Select Committee, in industry or in the Department of Trade and Industry has asked for this, and there has been no request from the European Economic Community for such action. Will he consider the fact that nearly 180 hon. Members from both sides have now asked the Government to withdraw that order? If it is a requirement that we try to substitute lead-free petrol signs as an attraction on forecourts, there has been no request for such substitution by the industry or by the EEC. I, therefore, ask my right hon. Friend to withdraw this unnecessary order, which is a bureaucratic madness.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's views, which I know are shared by a number of other hon. Members. However, the question of a debate is probably best left for discussion through the usual channels. I certainly take note of what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. James Lamond: A much-delayed agreement was recently reached in the Vienna CSCE talks, after our delegation, along with 34 other nations, had spent more than two years in negotiations. This agreement opens the door to far-reaching conventional disarmament talks between NATO and the Warsaw pact, as well as giving considerable hope for the improvement of human rights throughout Europe and northern America. It was important enough for the Foreign Secretary personally to take part in that ceremony. Surely, therefore, we should have a statement from him about it next week.
Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure whether the House will have a statement next week, but I shall refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend to discover whether he thinks one is necessary.
Dr. Keith Hampson: May I endorse the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) in respect of early-day motion 250? If we remove the requirement to price petrol in gallons, the transparency of competition for motorists travelling along roads is weakened. What the Government propose is contrary to their usual philosophy, and it is important to have a debate on that.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strength of feeling. The amending order recognises that 95 per cent. of all petrol sales are now measured in litres. A dual policy will still be required on the forecourt, and garages will not be prevented from continuing to display gallon equivalent prices at the roadside boards voluntarily. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend, as I said.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: May I again draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 241?
[That this House is deeply concerned and disturbed by the increase of accidents in the building and construction industry, leading to an increase in deaths and serious
486
injuries; believes that this is partly due to the increase in self-employment, namely lump labour and to some construction companies, in order to increase profits, ignoring the Health and Safety legislation; welcomes the efforts of workers and trades unions in the industry to halt the increasing numbers of deaths and injuries; fully supports the present campaign by workers and unions and other interested bodies to improve the situation; and further believes that there should be more factory inspectors appointed and that the legislation should be improved so that stronger action can be taken against those employers who ignore the legislation and thereby put the lives of the workforce at risk.]
It concerns safety in the building and construction industry and has been signed by 239 hon. Members, including all the leaders of opposition parties, excluding—until now—the leader of the SLD. I am sure I shall get him, too.
Is it not time we had a debate on this subject? There is a strong feeling that we must do something more positive than the Government are doing. Of course, the Opposition could well follow this up and have a debate in their own time—they probably will—but should not the Government agree to a debate, given that more than one third of the House have now said that action should be taken on the vital issue of the safety of workers in the construction industry?
Mr. Wakeham: As I said last week, the Government are concerned about health and safety in the construction industry. That is clearly reflected in the support given to the Health and Safety Executive. I recognise that this is an important subject about which the hon. Gentleman feels strongly. I cannot promise an early debate, but I shall certainly keep the point in mind.
Mr. William Cash: My right hon. Friend has been in correspondence with me recently about the beef hormone regulation. Will he be good enough to assure the House that he will ensure there is a debate on this issue before the matter goes for adoption to the Council of Ministers—especially as it is precipitating a trade war that would do immeasurable harm to relations between this country and the European Community and the United States?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of this matter and my hon. Friend's knowledge and concern about such matters. I am not in a position to announce a debate today, but I shall bear strongly in mind my hon. Friend's request.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Leader of the House will be aware of the imminent Nirex recommendations to the Government on three or four sites for nuclear waste disposal. Can he tell us the level and timing of the debate that will be allowed on that matter? Does he understand the amount of resistance there is in Scotland to Nirex naming any Scottish site for nuclear dumping?
Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not unaware of some of the issues involved, but we had better wait for the report before deciding how best to proceed.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As some hon. Members have announced their intention of moving by-election writs tomorrow morning in an attempt to talk

487
out the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), will my right hon. Friend give careful consideration to my hon. Friend's offer to withdraw her motion tomorrow if the Government will find time during the course of this Parliament to allow the House a vote on the important subject of abortion?
Mr. Wakeham: Which motions are in order tomorrow is not a matter for me, but my hon. Friend will know that I have seen our hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe). We had what I hope was a friendly and constructive discussion about the problems of her motion and about the underlying issues. I have written to her and, if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I hope to speak in the debate tomorrow, when I shall explain my position in full.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Government have tabled a timetable motion that will drastically curtail debate on such an important piece of legislation as the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill. In view of that, will the Leader of the House assure us that during that debate on Monday either the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General will be present so that we can seek advice about whether their advice and guidance was sought before very dangerous remarks were made about certain members of the legal profession in the North of Ireland during the course of proceedings in Committee?
Mr. Wakeham: Whether those matters are relevant and in order in Monday's debate is not a matter for me. I shall be tabling the timetable motion today and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tries to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, so that he can speak in the debate. It has long been widely known that the Bill must be enacted by 21 March if our society is to have adequate weapons with which to fight terrorism, because the current Act expires on that date. Agreements through the usual channels on the best way to discuss the Bill in Committee did not appear capable of being implemented and I am afraid that a timetable motion has been made necessary.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I wonder if I could support the Labour party in its request for a debate on the subject of Mr. Viraj Mendis which, unaccountably, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition did not lead on today. It would give us an opportunity to demonstrate the attachment of the Labour party to the cause of illegal immigration, its total contempt for justice and fair play in immigration and for the views of the vast majority of the people of this country, and, consequently, to demonstrate its total unsuitability ever to form a Government of this country.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his point. I thought that many of the things that he would like to see in the debate were clearly made during the discussion on the statement that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made yesterday. I cannot promise an early debate on the subject.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Is the Leader of the House aware that in recent months the Prime Minister has made some speeches with a substantial environmental content? In particular, is he aware of the speech that the
488
right hon. Lady made on the happy occasion of the centenary of the RSPB on Monday? Will he please ensure that his colleagues in all relevant Government Departments are made aware of the Prime Minister's support for the safeguarding of the English hedgerow, thereby ensuring that the Hedgerows Bill, which will be before the House on Friday 27 January, receives adequate support?
Mr. Wakeham: There are two parts to the hon. Gentleman's question. In the first part he asked whether my hon. Friends and I are aware of the speeches made by the Prime Minister. It is perhaps a touch naive of the hon. Gentleman to think that we require him to remind us that we should read with interest the many important speeches made by my right hon. Friend. That is a different matter from the Government's attitude to the Bill that he mentioned. The Government's attitude to that will be made clear in the debate.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend has said that we shall have a debate on Monday on the Scottish housing support grant. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Scottish media, and especially the Scottish press, carefully follow events in the House. I have here a report from the Glasgow Evening Times which says that we have already had that debate. The report tells how the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) made a splendid speech in that debate. It seems that the Scottish press, which reports our proceedings very fully and which recently talked about "Absent Andrew" and "Shopper Jim", is now talking about a phantom debate carried out by one member of the "Phantom 49".
Mr. Wakeham: I have had occasion in recent months to read the Scottish press with perhaps more care than I used to, and I formed a great admiration for parts of it. The detailed speech that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) appears to have made in the House in the early hours of the morning and which is set out with such cogency and clearness by Mr. Hernon is a tribute to the hon. Gentleman's foresight rather than an indication of the hours that he keeps in the House.
Mr. Stan Crowther: Does the Leader of the House realise that the answer he gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) about consultation through the usual channels is rather pointless, given that the order to which the Select Committee on Trade and Industry objects and wishes to see annulled comes into effect on 23 January, unless the House decides to vote in favour of annulment? Does he appreciate that the vast majority of motorists in this country still think in terms of gallons, not litres, when pricing petrol and that this order will be most unpopular? Will he therefore consider, even now, allowing the matter to be debated in the House before it is too late?
Mr. Wakeham: Since the hon. Gentleman has been in the House he has shown himself to be someone who cares deeply about the traditions and practices of the House. I am surprised that he dismisses with such contempt my suggestion that I have discussions through the usual channels.
Mr. Michael Brown: Further to the question put by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), will my right hon. Friend confirm

489
that the Nirex report is now at the Department of the Environment? Will he tell the House when our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make an announcement? Will he request the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that all those hon. Members with a clear constituency interest are given notice as to when that statement will be made?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot confirm any of the points that my hon. Friend asked me, but I have noted his request and I shall refer the matter to our right hon. Friend.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Has the Leader of the House noted the severe custodial sentence imposed on the mother who attacked the man who raped her five-year-old? Has he also seen the early-day motion in my name and those of other hon. Members? Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to discuss in the House the sentencing policy that allows such people as drunk drivers to kill someone on the road and receive a suspended sentence, while those who protect their five-year-olds are immediately incarcerated?
Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Lady well knows, sentencing is entirely a matter for the courts, which operate independently. I understand that the woman in question is to appeal against her sentence and, therefore, the case remains sub judice.
Mr. Tim Devlin: In view of the possible likelihood of a further Representation of the People Bill coming before the House, will my right hon. Friend consider whether that should be a limited or a much wider Bill so that those of us who know of specific abuses at polling stations throughout the country can add new provisions to it?
Mr. Wakeham: Any legislation that is brought before the House is carefully considered by the Minster responsible and I have no doubt that, if that eventuality comes about, my right hon. Friend will take note of my hon. Friend's comments.
Mr. John Hughes: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 258 which deals with the Office of Fair Trading report on funeral costs which are a very sensitive issue. Will the right hon. Gentleman provide some time for a debate?
[That this House notes the report published by the Office of Fair Trading on funeral costs; is concerned at the grossly insensitive service provided by some undertakers; notes that three quarters of funeral directors have broken their code, as funeral costs escalate beyond reason giving rise to concern at the effect on the public, especially the elderly; and therefore proposes that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry should conduct an urgent inquiry into this important matter.]
Mr. Wakeham: The report of the Director-General of Fair Trading addresses a number of recommendations to the industry aimed at improving the price information given to customers by funeral directors. He will be discussing those with the National Association of Funeral Directors. It is better to let that matter proceed, and the question of a debate could be considered later.
Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend will know that I have frequently asked for a debate on the
490
Butler-Sloss report. That was one of the most important and expensive legal inquiries that we have had in this country. Until last weekend even, constituents have come to me complaining about the activities of the social services department of Cleveland county council. It is time that the Government brought this vexed issue on to the Floor of the House so that every hon. Member could have the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
Mr. Wakeham: I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about this and he is right to keep pressing me, but, from my position, I am also right to say that I find it difficult to find time for such a debate in the near future. However, he will know that legislation before another place covers many of those issues. It will eventually come before this House and he will then have an opportunity to make many of the points that he so badly wishes to make.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Leader of the House look once more at early-day motions 249 and 250 on petrol retailing? I want to stress the all-party support for those motions. When the right hon. Gentleman replied earlier he said that the question of displaying gallons was a matter for petrol stations and the right was not being taken from them. At the moment they must display in gallons and the House and the Select Committee on Trade and Industry is worried about that point. I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has promised us that he will have discussions about this and I hope that they result in a debate being held in this House.
Mr. Wakeham: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments and the fact that he has added his weight to the request. I will certainly engage in discussions.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: My right hon. Friend often refers to the usual channels. Can he tell us whether there has been a change in procedure through the usual channels and not through the House? Is the new procedure that from now on the shadow Leader of the House will ask business questions not the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Wakeham: That is a matter for the Opposition. They must decide how to do it. I am happy to see the shadow Leader of the House having a go, while his voice lasts. I am equally happy to answer the Leader of the Opposition. It is not a matter that I spend a great deal of time worrying about.
Ms. Diane Abbott: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to consider early-day motion 286 on social security office closures in my name and the names of all London Labour Members?
[That this House deplores the proposal to close 21 social security offices in the Greater London area without adequate arrangements to ensure that service to claimants can be maintained or improved; notes that the proposals depend on computer networks between London and the centres processing claims and on hardware and software that has not yet been developed; further notes with concern the potential hardship to claimants and the stress on Department of Social Security staff in London if there is any failure in the computerisation programme; believes that the crisis in the Department of Social Security in London has been largely due to inadequate resourcing and that this has put great

491
pressure on Department of Social Security staff and has been one of the main reasons for high staff turnover; registers its strongest opposition to the proposal to cut 1,200 jobs from Department of Social Security offices in Greater London at a time when staff will have to deal with the same number of claimants; calls upon the Government to recognise that the problems with service delivery in London require additional Department of Social Security staffing levels to improve face to face contact and particularly home visits and interpreting services; and further calls upon the Secretary of State to reconsider the entire proposal and timetable and at the very least to implement the computerisation programme before deciding whether moving work out of London is in the best interests of the service and the claimants.]
Under the proposal 21 social security offices in London will be closed. That will affect millions of the poorest Londoners. In my constituency the Finsbury Park social security office will close and that will affect thousands of my constituents. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is absurd to claim that it is more efficient to process forms in Glasgow than in London. Will he give time at the earliest possible opportunity for a debate on the matter?
Mr. Wakeham: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Lady. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has said, his Department is in the business of service. Sadly, in spite of their dedication, DSS staff have not been able to maintain acceptable standards in London. By moving all the work out of London that does not need to be done there, that work will be done by a more stable work force and that will allow the DSS to provide a better and more efficient service. I would have thought that the hon. Lady would welcome that instead of disapproving of it.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement to be made by the Home Secretary before noon tomorrow about the intentions of the Home Office over Mr. Viraj Mendis? It is to be hoped that his deportation to Sri Lanka is to be deferred to allow urgent discussions to find a safe refuge for him in a third country to be successfully completed. Will the Leader of the House also give a firm commitment that, if an application for a judicial review is granted, Mr Mendis will not be deported? My confidence in the ability of the Home Office to assess the risk of persecution facing people seeking political asylum was completely shattered last December when someone for whom I had been seeking political asylum in this country was persuaded to return voluntarily to Pakistan on assurances from the Minister of State, Home Office that he need have no fear of persecution. That man was arrested and imprisoned on his arrival. The comment from the Minister of State's officials when told about that was, "Oh, dear."
Mr. Wakeham: I certainly cannot confirm what the hon. Gentleman said in the last part of his question. With regard to the main thrust of his question, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said yesterday.
Mr. David Winnick: May I first commiserate with the Leader of the House after the report
492
in today's Evening Standard which says that he is likely to be sacked, like all his predecessors since 1979. His is a high-risk job and I sympathise with him.
Can we have a debate in the very near future on the Register of Members' Interests so that Opposition Members can discuss the very extensive business interests and consultancies of Conservative Members? That is a matter of legitimate public concern. Has the Leader of the House seen the full list in today's copy of The Guardian?
Mr. Wakeham: The Register of Members' Interests is a welcome addition to what happens in the House. It is right that we should have it and I see no need for an early debate on the subject.
Mr. Tony Banks: In view of the Prime Minister's belated discovery of green issues, may we have a wide-ranging debate on environmental matters, because there is obviously great concern on both sides of the House and it would give us the opportunity to test whether the Green Goddess's conversion is real rather than illusory.
Mr. Wakeham: I have a suspicion that the interest of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in these matters goes back longer than that of the hon. Gentleman, but that is another matter. Her views are probably wiser and better thought-out than the hon. Gentleman's, however sincere he might be. The prelude to his question was not the best way to obtain an early debate on this subject. Nevertheless, it is an important matter and I shall bear his suggestion in mind.
Mr. John McFall: A few moments ago the Leader of the House spoke about reading the Scottish press with interest, so no doubt he has read a major story in the Scottish press about the discharge of radioactive coolant from nuclear submarines in the Forth and Clyde, admitted by a former United States submarine commander. That has been going on for many years and my constituents and all hon. Members on the Clyde are worried about it. Will the Leader of the House seek an opportunity for a debate on that and related environmental subjects, which are supposed to comprise the Government's concern for green issues?
Mr. Wakeham: The Government are satisfied with United States' practice in United Kingdom waters which has been governed by written arrangements since 1958 and has always remained within established national and international standards on the release of radioactivity.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If the evidence given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) today had been given yesterday during the statement on Viraj Mendis the debate on that statement would have been of a very different nature.
May we have a debate on the affairs of Kent, because more and more people there write to me drawing attention to the outrageous way that they have been treated by the Government? They object to cuts in the National Health Service and the privatisation of its provisions and to the Government's failure to deal with the roads problems. May we have a debate on Kent so that Labour Members can talk about that important part of the country, which has no Labour representation in Parliament?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not surprised that it has no Labour representation if that is a sample of the goods that are on offer. I prefer to listen to the views of my hon. Friends who represent Kent so splendidly in the House rather than to the hon. Gentleman.

Personal Statement
Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday in the House during questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster I commented on the conduct of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). That appears at column 321. I now know that the allegation that I made in the House yesterday was based on untrue information and was untrue in substance. I wish to withdraw the remarks relating to the hon. Gentleman and to apologise unreservedly to him for them.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I acknowledge the graceful withdrawal made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), which is in the best traditions of the House.
Mr. Speaker: I entirely agree.

Points of Order
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have established for the official record that the case referred to of the mother who took certain action after the raping of her child is not sub judice, as the Leader of the House told us in what I think was a slip of the tongue. It would be sub judice only if the appeal had been registered, and I do not think that it has. I am sure that the Leader of the House would not want unnecessarily or unfairly to curtail discussion of that matter in the House.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I only reported what was advised to me. I did not intend to curtail discussion; I simply felt that since an appeal is pending, even if it has not already been lodged, it would be unwise of me to express any views on the matter.
Mr. Tim Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise two matters arising out of supplementary questions to the Prime Minister? The first relates to the extent to which it is legitimate to ask the Prime Minister in the House about local authority matters. Local authorities are the creations of statute. The Department of the Environment is responsible for their supervision and my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) had hoped to complete his supplementary question by suggesting to the Prime Minister that she should abolish Cleveland county council. Surely that is a matter for which she has responsibility.
Mr. David Winnick: She should abolish?
Mr. Smith: That she should suggest to Parliament that it should be abolished.
My second point relates to the supplementary question that was asked by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). When Conservative Members were protesting about the terms of his question, I think that you, Mr. Speaker, thought that they felt that he, too, should be subject to your strictures on the question about local authorities. In fact, his supplementary question bore no relation to the question on the Order Paper and that was the point of concern.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that hon. Members, particularly those who have been here for some time, will endeavour to get their questions to the Prime Minister in order. I shall look carefully at Hansard because it is difficult in the hurly-burly of debate to take account of everything, but I think that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) said that he was seeking the Prime Minister's guidance in dealing with a constituency problem, which is a different matter from an issue for which she has responsibility. However, I shall look at the matter carefully. The House well knows that at Question Time Members must direct questions to Ministers, and to the Prime Minister, on matters within their responsibilities.
496
On the second point, Question No. 2 on the Order Paper tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) was a definitive one. I did not hear anything out of order and I was listening carefully.
Mr. Richard Holt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. However experienced one is, there are only two ways to approach a question to a Minister—either by asking the question and then substantiating it, or substantiating the question and then putting it. If one takes the latter course, and one is faced with the baying of the mindless morons on the Opposition Benches and with your intervention, Mr. Speaker, it makes matters difficult. It may well be that I did not finish my question as I would have liked to have done. If I had not been interrupted, I might have been able to put my question to the Prime Minister in my own manner.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman gets another opportuniy, as I hope that he will during the course of the Session, I suggest that he puts his question first and follows with the rationale.
Mr. William Ross: On a completely different point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been a Member of the House for 15 years but I have never before seen the procedure followed during Prime Minister's questions today when, because the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) had lost her voice, you, Mr. Speaker, allowed the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) to put her question for her, which had to be read because the hon. Lady did not know precisely what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley wanted to say. When was that procedure last followed and in what circumstances would you allow that to happen in future?
Mr. Speaker: I happened to know that the hon. Lady had lost her voice. Since her question was reached, it seemed chivalrous that she should have the opportunity to ask another hon. Member to read it for her. I have no knowledge of any precedent. I hope that it will not happen too often, but that seemed to be the right thing to do today.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order to assist you, I can tell you that the last time that an hon. Member lost his voice and another hon. Member was allowed to read what he wanted to say was in the case of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook).
Mr. Tony Banks: I should like to know what happens when the Prime Minister loses her voice.
Further to an earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is fair to record, since my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is not in his place, that he courteously gave notice of his question to the Prime Minister's Office. Conservative Members should know that.
Mr. Speaker: I do not know about that, but I do know that he had a definitive question on the Order Paper and it seemed to me that his supplementary question was relevant to it. Let us move on to the debate on local government finance.

Rate Support Grant
4.9 pm
The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant Report (England) 1989–90 (House of Commons Paper No. 75), a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.
I understand that it will be convenient to discuss also the four related motions on the Order Paper:
That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) 1989–90 (House of Commons Paper No. 14), a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.
That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 2) 1987–88 (House of Commons Paper No. 13), a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.
That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 4) 1986–87 (House of Commons Paper No. 12), a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.
That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 4) 1985–86 (House of Commons Paper No. 11), a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.
In December, following consultation, I announced to the House decisions on next year's rate support grant settlement and on the outstanding supplementary reports for the remaining years of the present system. Right hon. and hon. Members will therefore be familiar with the contents of those reports. It was suggested that I should say that, but I am not sure that it is true, although this year we have tried to give as much detail as possible to those wanting it. We have also tried to produce the reports in a comprehensible form, though I admit that the present system is not easy to follow.
I remind the House that next year aggregate Exchequer grant, which is central Government's contribution to local expenditure, will be £13,575 million. When using percentages, it is important to make clear what the underlying figures are. The increase in Exchequer grant is 9 per cent. more than the amount of grant to be paid to authorities this year, representing a cash increase of £1,100 million. The amount of local authority expenditure in the Government's spending plans increased by 8·6 per cent., which is £2,300 million above the level previously planned for this year. That will allow local authorities to increase their current expenditure broadly in line with the gross domestic product deflator.
Those decisions on grant and expenditure together provide a generous settlement for local government. If local authorities spend in line with the Government's spending plans, next year's average rate increases will be about 2 per cent. or 5p in the pound. Even if authorities increase spending by 2 per cent. in real terms, rates need only rise by about the rate of inflation. I hope that local authorities will not increase expenditure but if they do—
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gummer: I have hardly started, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly.
If local authorities keep their rates down, they will be able to spend more because they will make a number of the savings that have already been identified. That will be to the benefit of their ratepayers.
Mr. Harry Greenway rose—
Mr. Gummer: I give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Greenway: I apologise for intervening so early in my right hon. Friend's speech, but I hope that it will take account of the direction of spending in the London borough of Ealing. Is he aware that that Labour-controlled borough is proposing a 35 per cent. increase in rates this year, having increased them by 65 per cent. only two years ago? At the same time, the borough intends to reduce important services such as refuse collection and street cleaning, while increasing staff in the gay and lesbian unit, and so on. Is my right hon. Friend aware of my constituents' extreme rage and suffering as a result of that disgraceful situation?
Mr. Gummer: Despite what my hon. Friend says about the London borough of Ealing—and I live in it—it may be better to live there than in Fulham and Hammersmith, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) does. When the cost of having a Labour council in Ealing was a mere 72 per cent. rates rise, Hammersmith ratepayers suffered a 126 per cent. increase in one year. From the outset, we are in the business of telling local councils that they can keep their spending down. Ealing did so when it was rate-capped, and it does not need to increase spending now.
Mr. Clive Soley: The Minister is off to a bad start, and I shall deal shortly with some of the sillier examples he and the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) gave. As I know that we disagree on the basics, I put to the Minister the views of an independent expert, writing in the Local Government Chronicle. With regard to the 2 per cent. figure for average rate increases to which the Minister refers, the independent expert comments:
"Such an outcome is most unlikely. First, to achieve this rate rise figure, authorities would have to keep year-on-year cost increases to just over 3 per cent. Second, authorities are certain to rate up in 1989–90 to build up their reserves for the first year of community charge."
If that is an independent expert's view, what makes the Minister think that he is right?
Mr. Gummer: What argument can there be for building up reserves for the first year of the community charge? If that is the independence of the independent expert, it suggests that his independence is in one direction. It is not true that such reserves will be necessary. The community charge will lay the burden of rates on all the people instead of some of them. The 40 per cent. of people living in above average rated property and having below average incomes will be relieved of the unfair rate burden. The hon. Gentleman makes a very bad point. If it is typical of the points that he will be making in his speech, we look forward to it with considerable interest.
The Rate Support Grants Act 1988, which the House passed last November, will ensure that the full amount of grants of £13,575 million will be paid out. The independent expert to whom the hon. Gentleman refers may like to remember that. All the grant will be paid out, and nothing will be left over because of overspending authorities. During our debates on the Rate Support Grants Bill, several hon. Members expressed disappointment that local authorities would no longer receive additional grant for any shortfall on their expenditure. But when the Act is viewed alongside the very generous settlement being debated today—under which the grant in London, for example, is increased by 11 per cent.—it must be seen as

499
fair and reasonable. If Ealing proposes a rates increase of 35 per cent. when the London grant is rising by 11 per cent., some of us living in shire counties—where the grant increase is much less and where rates will not increase by anything like the level that Ealing proposes—may consider applying the word "incompetence" to Ealing council.
To those who argue that local authorities need to spend more, I say that there is plenty of scope for savings, which could be used either to benefit ratepayers or to allow a modest expansion in the provision of services. The Audit Commission, which certainly is an independent body, has identified short-term savings of about £500 million annually which can be achieved now. A large number of areas where savings can be made have been identified, and I shall refer to them later.
The Local Government Act 1988 introduced competition into a number of local authority services. Substantial savings can be made by opening up a number of services to competition. Suffolk county council will not mind my saying that it did not think that introducing competition would be satisfactory. It felt that its system of running services was very good, as indeed it was. Nevertheless, Suffolk has discovered that competition and the ability to make wider choices provide an extra spur and it now expects the new arrangement to work extremely well. I say that of an authority that was not among those falling over themselves to accept the rationale of going out to tender. When services are subject to competition, savings of up to 20 per cent. have been achieved. The services subject to competition currently cost authorities £2,500 million to £3,000 million annually, so there are potential savings to be made of several hundered million pounds per year. Ratepayers will expect local authorities to take advantage of those opportunities as soon as possible.
Inevitably, the system and the settlement do not please everyone, although I am surprised that Opposition Members are among those not pleased. It is galling for a well-run authority to see a neighbouring high-spending and wasteful authority receive more grant. It is perfectly possible for people living in an authority to have high needs, even when the council is badly run. That is a real issue, and it must be faced. The Government have a responsibility to measure the needs not only of local authority tenants but also of the generality of ratepayers and others living in the authority's area. It is very often found that councils serving people having considerable needs may not be using the money they have as efficiently as they could. It is galling for a neighbouring authority, whose needs may be less but whose efficiency may be considerably greater, to find that its efficiency is not receiving the recognition that it should, because the needs of a neighbouring council must be met.
Mr. David Blunkett: Under the clawback system, it was the so-called "overspenders" who lost grant, which was redistributed to authorities that "underspent" and followed Government guidelines. That is the opposite of the case that the Minister makes. Far from money going to high-spending authorities, all that will happen—and I welcome this—is that the absurd penalty system will disappear and the block grant will work, at least for the coming year, as a block grant.
Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman brings considerable knowledge to the subject, but on this occasion he is wrong for two reasons. First, the present redistribution system means that people living in areas of high rateable value, even if they are poor, subsidise those living in areas of low rateable value even though those people may be rich. Poor people living in Solihull, for instance, subsidise rich people who happen to live in a neighbouring area, irrespective of their means.
Mr. Blunkett rose—
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to finish my answer to his point.
Secondly, the amount of grant being offered to authorities is at present based on a complicated formula. Needs are an important part of that formula; in future they will be the only part. Authorities are given the opportunity to receive the grant that they need, but some authorities such as Camden refuse Government grant because they overspend when savings could so easily be made. Southwark is another example—it does not even both to collect its rents, and 30 per cent of its annual rent and rates roll is outstanding. We cannot ask for even more money to be poured into an authority like that.
Mr. David Howell: My right hon. Friend made an excellent point when he said that it was galling for efficient authorities to find their grant being taken away. Is he aware that that feeling reaches a peak in my district authority, Guildford, where no grant at all is being provided this year although it is massively below GREA and its rates have risen at one fifth of the inflation rate over the past eight years?
I realise that this is a whimsical system with colossally wide variations in distribution, but is it really necessary to provide no grant at all for a borough that has performed so well? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the new arrangements will remedy the vast spread of distribution and unfairness that results from the present system?
Mr. Gummer: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has raised that. Only yesterday I saw a delegation from the county which contains Guildford, and we examined exactly those points. My right hon. Friend's constituents should be told that the new system is designed to provide grant where the need lies and to stop the subsidising of some people by others unconnected with their needs, regardless of their ability to pay. Under the new system Guildford will at least be involved in a sensible relationship with other authorities and will receive grant according to its needs and its ability to raise income. Its grant will not be diverted by a system that is clearly unfair, and very hard on those who happen to be poor but live in an area with generally high rateable values.
I wish to place it on record that sensibly run local authorities are the norm in local government. I have been very impressed by the way in which the majority of local government officers run their affairs, and by their independence of mind. Local government is so often characterised by incompetent authorities which are caricatures of what a properly run authority should be.
An example of a well-run authority is Solihull, which gets on with the job of providing good local services and meeting the needs of its ratepayers. It finds that because its local resources—that is, the total of rateable values in the area—are rising faster than its needs, it actually receives

501
less grant. The same is true of a number of other authorities such as Eastleigh, Harborough, and Tonbridge and Malling. Because their local ability to raise income continues to rise faster than the average they receive less grant, however efficient they are.
I understand the sense of frustration felt by such authorities. The present system treats areas like Solihull unfairly, because it requires them to subsidise other parts of the country with low rateable values. That unfairness will come to an end when the community charge system is brought in. Then all the taxpayers will subsidise those in need, rather than just people who happen to live in an area with high rateable values.
I must admit to the hon. Member for Hammersmith that before I became Minister for Local Government I used to take press accounts of some of the sillier antics of certain local authorities with a considerable pinch of salt. I thought that they made good stories, but I did not believe in the context. But the more that I have observed such authorities since I started doing this job, the more I fear that what happens in some of them is understated rather than overstated. I am not talking about the activities on the extremist fringe, although we all enjoy such party political arguments; I am talking about the sheer incompetence of some authorities. That incompetence often means not only that the people are inconvenienced, but that they are put at risk. The weakest and most vulnerable people need local authority services more than anyone else.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that such authorities exist outside the London boroughs? It is wrong to believe that such incompetence is restricted to London. Some shire councils in counties such as Derbyshire are well on the way to being equally loony in some of their practices.
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend must have been reading my mind. I was going to take Derbyshire—which is not far from his home—as an example. I did not intend to refer to Mr. Bookbinder's statement that Derbyshire would have enough money to provide £20 million for any buy-out of BREL, although that is an interesting comment on the council's ability. I was going to say that in October-November last year Derbyshire issued a leaflet inviting ratepayers' views about libraries entitled "Do You Want a Tax on Knowledge?"
It would be possible for me to criticise that document on the ground that what it says is untrue. I could also criticise it on the ground that it contains tendentious party political statements paid for by the ratepayer. I prefer, however, to base my criticism on incompetence. The document set out to suggest to the people of Derbyshire that they could write in and explain to the local council how to answer the Government's discussion paper on libraries, but the closing date for consultation was 31 July—three months before Derbyshire's leaflet was published. That shows once again that Derbyshire is not only on the fringes of sense, but is unable to use the money that it receives from ratepayers effectively. It is not surprising that it has such a high rate poundage.
Just before Christmas I announced that we had redetermined expenditure levels for certain rate-limited authorities. In doing so, we set a number of conditions related to certain aspects of their expenditure and financial management. I felt it right to try to bring back into the
502
argument not the party politics of extremism versus moderation, but the sensible argument about competence versus incompetence. In Southwark rent and rate arrears total £53 million—£318 per adult in the borough. That approaches 30 per cent. of the borough's rent and rates roll. Clearly, that must be reduced, but it can be reduced only if the authority sets an example and is competent to do so. When we hear that the London borough of Brent does not even know who its tenants are, it is not surprising that it does not collect their rents. In Lambeth, I understand that a councillor who is vice-chairman of the housing committee and a member of the panel which reviews rent arrears has arrears of about £2,000 dating back several years. How can she expect people to pay their rent if she does not do so herself? How could officers in the London borough of Brent expect to be supported by the elected councillors if those councillors, including the leader of the council, were in considerable rent arrears?
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Blunkett: That is trivial.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must not tell me that it is trivial that someone who is elected to represent a borough should owe that borough rates and rent yet ask other people to pay. If that is trivial, it is a curious triviality.
Mr. Soley: The Minister is getting such a response from the Opposition because his comments are not worthy of a journalist from The Sun. The Minister is picking out one individual about whom he knows very little. I could do the same with Conservative councillors. Conservative councillors in Sheffield are trying to persuade people to sell estates to companies in which they have an interest There are many such examples. I am not in the business of knocking councillors who, whether they are Labour, Tory, Liberal or anything else, generally do a damned good job for this country at no great cost to the community. It is about time that the Minister had the courage to stand up for local government instead of attacking it, undermining it and demoralising it.
Mr. Gummer: I will condemn unreservedly any occurrence such as that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Will he condemn the leaders and members of local councils who do not pay their rents? I give him the chance to answer that.
Mr. Soley: My answer is quite simply no—because, like the Minister, I do not know the facts. When I know the facts I will decide on my moral position. The Minister must not ask me or any other hon. Member to judge people before there has been a fair tribunal. The Government are very fond of saying that the rule of law should apply, so we should let it apply. Let us make sure that a person is guilty before we condemn him.
Mr. Gummer: I invited the hon. Gentleman to condemn a councillor who does not pay his rent and who is in considerable rent arrears over long periods of lime. I invited him to do that, not to judge any individual case. The hon. Gentleman refused to do so. I have condemned any situation in which a councillor uses his position to forward his own personal interests. I do so unreservedly. I note that the hon. Gentleman does not do the same.
Mr. Soley: The word "wilful" is missing from the Minister's comments. I would condemn a wilful intention to avoid paying rent. Let us suppose that the person concerned had suffered severe illness which had affected his functioning. I have no idea whether that explanation would apply to the Minister's example, but if that were the case, would he condemn such a person?
Mr. Gummer: We have a most generous system of helping people with their rents if they cannot pay them. The case I mentioned involved someone who has claimed very large sums of money, amounting to £28,000. I challenged the hon. Gentleman to condemn a situation in which those who sought to lead the community were not examples to that community. If he will not do that, I fear for the future of local government.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the Minister condemn the leader of Westminster city council for her conduct in relation to the cemeteries which was an absolute disgrace? Will he condemn her and her comrades? I am not supporting the individual the Minister mentioned because I do not know much about that person, but I know what the leader of Westminster city council did because I am a Westminster ratepayer. Will the right hon. Gentleman condemn her?
Mr. Gummer: I am already on record as wholly supporting the comments which were made by the local government ombudsman in that case. The matter has been fully investigated and I fully support the independent judicial body.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, in the stance that he has adopted today, has supported one Labour council against another. The Labour council in Salford has rent arrears of about 5 per cent. of their rent roll because it sets an example and collects the rent. That means that they are able to make sure that people who pay their rent are not put at a disadvantage by people who do not pay their rent. I commend such local councils. The hon. Gentleman asked me to stand up for local councils. I have done so ever since I took on my present job. I began my speech by saying that local councils such as Lambeth and Brent are not characteristic of local authorities. They are extreme examples, but they spend a great deal of taxpayers' money and fail to produce the services that the weakest and poorest in their community most need.
Mr. Soley rose—
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Gummer: I give way to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who has tried three times to intervene.
Mr. Banks: Perhaps the Minister could return to the rate support grant instead of indulging in an unseemly tirade against alleged debtors. If we were to talk in those terms, we might wish to chuck into the arena the names of some Members of Parliament who are not particularly prompt at paying their debts. I would not want to do that, and I am sure that the Minister would not want me to do that. As for the level of rent arrears in inner city areas, the Minister must understand that the population movement in many inner city boroughs makes it a complex and bewildering task to keep track of the various tenants.
504
Secondly, does the Minister accept that since the £600 million cut in housing benefit there has been an average 37 per cent. increase in rent arrears in all local authorities in London and outside? The Minister must address that point.
Mr. Gummer: I would accept what the hon. Gentleman said if it were not the case that local authorities seem able to collect rent in Salford but not in Brent. Why is it so much more difficult in Lambeth than in Wandsworth? When we compare like with like, it is clear that it is not more difficult.
I must make it clear to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), for whom I have a great deal of respect, that this is not a trivial matter because a councillor who does not believe in the system cannot support his officers in seeking to collect the rents. Those Labour-controlled authorities which believe in the collection of rents and set an example find that their officers are able to achieve what is, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said, a difficult task. However, if councils such as Brent do not keep a list of tenants, it is very difficult indeed.
Mr. Soley: The Minister is leading the debate into a discussion about which local authority and which councillor is worst. A number of Conservative-controlled local authorities are guilty of, to put it mildly, some pretty gross errors of judgment. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is right in saying that it is only a matter of time before we start dragging up the individual behaviour of Members of Parliament. If we do that, we shall start undermining democracy in this country. It would be useful if the Minister, who I understand has strong connections with the Church, would bear in mind that it is not a good idea to condemn people in that way as it prejudges and undermines the very democracy in which most of us believe.
Mr. Gummer: I am concerned about the situation in some of our big cities where people who need help do not receive it because others do not pay their way. I am suggesting that it is not easy to ask people to pay their rents if the individuals doing the asking do not pay their rents. That does not seem unreasonable. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about tax evasion?"] I condemn tax evasion as well. However, the hon. Member for Hammersmith does not condemn such behaviour. I fear that that is dangerous.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Gummer: I must get on, but I have promised to allow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) to intervene.
Mr. Blunkett: I accept that the Minister has made a very useful political knock-about point, and I place it on record that all Opposition Members would want people to set an example and to pay their way, whether that involves tax or rent. However, does the Minister accept that regardless of a moral or political judgment the amount of rent not collected because of the accountancy system being used does not affect the rents of other tenants, nor does it affect the rate account, so it does not affect this debate one iota?
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is not correct. If a local authority thinks that it will get a large sum in rents and does not get it, it does not have that money to spend

505
on other services. Further, the fact that it does not get that money but keeps the figure in the accounts as though it will distorts not only the accounts but the authority's ability to gain grant. So the local authority finds itself in a less proper position to deal with the problems.
Mr. Paul Boatengrose—
Mr. Gummer: I have already given way a great deal. The hon. Gentleman has not been in his place for the whole of the debate. I hope that he will find an opportunity to speak.
The least that local people should expect from their local authority is that it should be competently managed. When the local government and housing Bill is introduced, the House will see that we are concerned to strengthen the role of local government officers. I am determined to give local government officers the considerable independence that they should have and support them in every way because we owe a great deal to them. We need to encourage and develop their undoubted professionalism and reduce the polictical interference which leads to incompetence.
How much rates will rise next year will depend on how much local authorities choose to spend, As I said, if they budget sensibly in line with the realistic spending provisions which we have made available, rates on average—I emphasise that it is on average—need rise by only about 2 per cent., substantially less than the GDP deflator.
The subject of rates is a touchy issue for the Opposition Front Bench. That is why they tried—unsuccessfully I believe—to pre-empt this debate by asking a carefully contrived parliamentary question about percentage rate increases. I pointed out earlier that when looking at percentages one must also consider the underlying figures.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is not at present in his place but he will not object to my referring to a statement that he made recently in which he drew attention to rate increases by percentage. I was interested to note that my council of Suffolk Coastal did rather badly on that figure, and as I often have arguments with that council I thought that I should look into the matter.
The hon. Member for Copeland talked about percentages without talking about the total rate poundage. That led me to take another look at the figures. I then discovered that, on that basis, Suffolk Coastal was 46th among shire districts, as opposed to second in terms of rates in the pound. I also discovered that the hon. Member for Copeland did not draw attention to the fact that the five shire districts with the highest rate poundages are all Labour controlled and that there are no Conservative authorities in the top 25. So again we find that an attempt to pre-empt the figures by a little selective choice has failed.
Mr. Soley: Selective choice?
Mr. Gummer: Yes, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is known in his constituency as "126 per cent. Soley." His constituents remember the past. That is what the local council did for him and I will not let him forget that.
Mr. Soley: I was re-elected.
Mr. Gummer: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman's neighbour in Battersea lost his seat and a Conservative win was recorded.
506
It is not surprising that the county with the highest rate poundage is our old friend Derbyshire, with 297·5p. Of the 10 counties with the highest rate poundages, none is Conservative controlled. Nationally, the picture is the same. Rate poundages in Labour areas are on average 35 to 50 per cent. higher than in Conservative areas. That is the position despite the unfair system which taxes people living in high rateable value areas to support those in low rateable value areas. That is why I said recently that if we had had the community charge the cost of living in a Labour area would on average be £100 per person per year.
In addition to the RSG report for 1989–90, we are today considering four supplementary reports for the years 1985–86 to 1988–89. Supplementary reports are one feature of this system that we are looking forward to getting rid of because they go on and on and we are still trying to unweave things going back years. That is why we believe that the new system is necessary. The system on which we have built year by year under Labour and Conservative Administrations was designed for a wholly different circumstance. The new system will be a considerable improvement on the present arrangements in a number of its key features. I intend to ensure that so far as possible in local government finance the new system is comprehensible, not just to the cognoscenti and the councillors but to the ordinary people who pay the bills.
Much of the disquiet about previous rate support grant settlements has stemmed from the fact that the system is virtually impossible to explain in simple terms. That has been the case for as long as most hon. Members can recall. I remember it in operation under Labour and Conservative Administrations. It is difficult to encourage local accountability and to draw a clear link between local spending decisions and local taxation when the linkage is vastly complicated by resource equalisation, a penalty system, inexplicable changes in GREs and the many other facets of the present arrangements.
Few people will be unhappy to see the end of the present rate support grant system. Rates will become a thing of the past. Few will regret the passing of rates, except perhaps those Labour Members who would like to retain rates based on capital values and then to add to it a system of local income tax—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hammersmith had better see what the result of such a system would be for his constituents. I hope that he will ask a few questions on that subject, because I can give him a few answers. It would mean two taxes in place of one.
A major advantage of the new system is that grant will in future be influenced only by a local authority's need to spend. This underlines clearly the Government's commitment to provide grant to meet real local needs. The criterion will be to each according to his needs. Just as with the community charge, the rebate system is designed to ask from each according to his ability.
Mr. Michael Carttiss: One is treading on dangerous ground when taking up points that my right hon. Friend has been making about next year. In terms of what he said about the whole system being much fairer, may I ask him to re-examine the question of leaving out of needs assessment for next year's revenue support grant the cost of coastal protection and of being a holiday resort? That will adversely affect my constituency according to figures now available to us.
Mr. Gummer: In terms of deciding need, the Government are at present discussing that measurement with the various associations. No doubt my hon. Friend will bring to the notice of the association concerned the points that he wishes to be considered. We must remember that the various associations have differing views, even among people of the same political persuasion, because there are different pressures in different parts of the country. We must get the best balance between those pressures. That is what I am seeking to do and what the discussions are now about. I cannot tell my hon. Friend how that will come out because those discussions will have serious effects on the decisions that are made. But at the conclusion of them I shall be happy to discuss with my hon. Friend how matters affect his constituency of Great Yarmouth.
The grant will now depend not on a whole series of factors, nor indeed on a curious arrangement involving rateable values and comparative rateable values. It will depend on the needs of the local area. One of the great difficulties of the present system, which I find hard to explain, is why an area which is expanding in terms both of population and of business may end up getting less grant, although its needs have increased. It must be more sensible to have a system based on need.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Brightside, who makes such points with great care, that it depends on how one measures need. But one does not solve the problem by saying that because someone will have to decide what the need is we should not try at all. We are seeking a simple and clear way of doing it, and we are discussing with those most concerned—the local authorities—how best to achieve that.
The most important advantage of the new system, with the exception of the needs grant, is the community charge, which will spread the cost of paying for local services more widely and fairly. It will give voters a direct financial interest in the decisions of their councils. That is for the future, but for next year we have provided a generous settlement and I commend the reports to the House.
4.49 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: We have just heard a squalid and disgraceful attack on local democracy, regardless of whether it be controlled by the Labour party, the Conservative party, or the Social and Liberal Democratic party.
We are supposed to be debating the last rate support grant under the old system. In future, we shall have a debate on revenue support grant. The move from one to the other is a move from disaster to catastrophe. The Government admit that the present system is bad, and they are right. It was designed and built by them and they have administered it. It is inefficiient, unfair and must go. They have replaced the old system with an inefficent and grossly unfair one. We must remember that the poll tax will be two taxes—if the business tax is taken into account—and will be unpopular and unfair.
Mr. McLoughlin: What is the alternative?
Mr. Soley: The alternative is much fairer. Almost every other western democracy uses models similar to those that we are proposing. Our proposals have been recommended by people who know, believe in and love local government.
508
We are riding on the crest of a wave on that issue and only time will tell. People know that the poll tax is grossly unfair and that it will hit hard many on low incomes.
The Minister spoke of the needy being hurt. How can he justify the fact that under the poll tax two pensioners living in a flat will be paying more than a millionaire living in a mansion? As Conservative Members know, there is no justification.
Whenever we have these debates—and, sadly, many other debates—we must bear in mind that Government statistics should carry a health warning, preferably from the late but not much lamented former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). For many years, the Minister and his predecessors have thrown out misleading rate support grant figures. The Minister made something of misleading information being put out by local authorities, which he claimed was political. The Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside has refused my challenge to submit the Government's leaflet—tens of thousands of which were put out by them at the taxpayers' expense and is known to be grossly misleading and highly political—to the independent judgment of the National Consumers Council, which is chaired by a former Conservative Member of Parliament, or the Institute of Housing, which I will accept as independent bodies. That is one of a number of issues that the Government are pedlling as information, but which are political propaganda. They are doing so at the taxpayers' expense, but when a council tries to put out information it is jumped on by the Government, who prevent it from doing so. That is the worst form of authoritarian centralism.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman is talking about misleading information, but is it not relevant to mention the 9 million people who will be covered by community charge rebates? Is it not highly likely that the poor pensioners to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring will be covered by those rebates?
Mr. Soley: Much will depend on their circumstances, but nobody is suggesting that the rates of a millionaire will be increased. Taxation is normally progressive. The reason why everyone dislikes the poll tax is that for the first time this country wil have a tax that is not progressive.
Mr. McLoughlin: I ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question that was acknowledged by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). Does he believe that the present rating system reflects the ability to pay?
Mr. Soley: No, of course it does not, because the Government have consistently cut rate support grant, which has driven up rates. The rating system was never truly progressive, but it was much fairer and rates were more equitably distributed before the Government began slashing rate support grant.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: My wife and I will pay less under the poll tax then we pay at present, but poor constituents of mine will pay more than me. What is just about that? I am prepared to pay more rates than I do at present, as long as poor people get a fair deal, but they will not.
Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is right, but one must also take into account the quality of service.

509
The Government present themselves as the party that cuts taxes, but that is not so. The most recent figures show that the taxation burden of a man on average wages with two children increased from 35·1 per cent. of gross earnings in 1978–79—the last year of office of the Labour Government—to 37·3 per cent. this year.
Although the Government have cut income tax—especially for those who are highly paid—rates, national insurance, VAT and indirect taxes have increased dramatically. The tax burden of the average man with two children has increased by about 2 per cent. Affluent people have had a dramatic cut in their tax base, which gives the lie to the Minister's protestations that he is concerned about the effects of rates on low-income people.
There is no evidence that any Minister is concerned about what happens to people on low incomes. If they were, they would not have voted against the uprating of child benefit. If they were, they would not have given massive tax handouts to the rich. I notice an unpleasant or embarrassed silence among Conservative Members. This subject is the Achilles' heel of the Conservative party, because in the long run no society can claim to be just, equitable and fair if it hands out to the rich when at the same time—for the first time in my memory—men, women and children are begging in the streets and sleeping rough. How can anyone who advances a Christian morality, as does the Minister, justify that? How can he speak of condemning people yet do nothing about the problem? It has led people to comment that London is beginning to look like a third world city.
Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Gentleman is putting his heart on his sleeve. We all care about disadvantaged people. Perhaps he would like to note that many of my pensioner constituents, and those who are disabled, are having to go without food to pay the rates that have been levied by Labour-controlled Ealing council, which wilfully wastes that money.
Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that it wilfully wastes money. His constituents, who neighbour mine and are not radically different, are going without food because housing benefit has been cut eight times, because social security has been cut, and because the cuts are funded on a midnight army of low-paid people who are paying about 7 per cent. more tax.
The Government whom the hon. Gentleman chooses to support have cut the rate support grant and when a Labour administration took over from a Tory one in Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham and tried to improve services, it also took over a rate rise which was in the pipeline. In Hammersmith and Fulham that rise was about 30 per cent. and would have taken place even if a Conservative administration had been elected, which of course it was not.
Mr. Boateng: Does the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) accept that in some respects the problem is worse here than in a so-called third world country? At least in a third world country there is an extended family system that is capable of nurturing and caring for those who are disadvantaged by virtue of age or ill-health. The poll tax discriminates against the extended family and will make it more difficult for people who want to look after their young, unemployed sons or daughters or elderly relatives.
510
In his speech—I regret that I did not hear it all because I was in Committee on the Water Bill—the Minister was less than fair to my borough of Brent in its attempts to collect overdue rents. He will recognise that the borough has only recently introduced a new system of rent collection that uses external agents who seek to step up the rate of rent collection. They are taking efficient steps to match the concerns he has mentioned. His colleagues in the Department of the Environment praised Brent housing department for its innovation.
Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is right. Brent council is seeking to do something about its problems. It would help local authorities if the Government showed confidence in them, regardless of their political complexion, and helped them when they ran into problems, instead of trying to trip them up and put the boot in. They act like political bovver boys who destroy, undermine and devalue local democracy, whether in the form of councillors or council officers. Why are so many council officers, not just councillors, demoralised about their role? Why is it becoming increasingly difficult to get members of any party to stand for local authorities? Is it not because the Government are taking away their powers, circumscribing their activities and taking from the local electorate that which, in the past, both Conservative and Labour Governments have felt was its proper job?
I was talking about the way in which the Government manipulated the statistics. The most important fact to bear in mind during debates on the rate support grant is that there was a massive cut in it. I am sure that the Minister will not deny that the cut took place between 1980 and 1988. It was the Government's policy. The Conservative party's 1979 election manifesto said that a Conservative Government would cut public expenditure in order to transfer the money saved into tax rebates and thus regenerate the economy. That did not happen. North sea oil was used to finance the economy in the south while the plug was pulled on manufacturing industry in the north. One can continue selling the family silver for as long as one likes, but when it has all been sold, people must be asked to pay.
Rate support grant as a percentage of relevant expenditure—the aggregate Exchequer grant—has fallen from 46·2 per cent. in 1988–89 to 43·3 per cent. in 1989–90. In 1979–80, the last year of the Labour Government, it was 61 per cent. The Government's philosophy on public expenditure has been to say to local authorities, "Do not do as we do, but as we tell you." They made local authorities cut their expenditure and, at the same time, particularly in the early 1980s the Government increased public expenditure. It was increasing, not just in re& terms but in percentage terms, because the Government were financing mass unemployment from a sinking industrial base.
Mr. Irvine Patnick: The Department of the Environment's circular 88/75, called, "Local Authority Expenditure 1976–77—forward Planning", says:
"The Secretary of State for the Environment said in reply to a Parliamentary question on 5th August, 'there will have to be a standstill next year'."
That was a Labour Minister speaking to the House.
Mr. Soley: There is no problem about that. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) is trying to skate around his party's philosophy—broadcast loud and clear in the 1979 election—to cut public expenditure. The Government failed to do so but they forced local authorities to cut and do what they could not. The Labour Government tried to bring about a standstill in public expenditure when they did not have the benefit of North sea oil. The hon. Gentleman failed to take into account the fact that since 1980, as North sea oil has come ashore, combined with the selling of the state silver—as the late Harold Macmillan described it—the Government have channelled large sums into the south of Britain at the expense of the north and have allowed manufacturing industry to collapse.
If one examines the regional distribution of wealth through the European Commission, the tragedy for this country is that the south, one of its most prosperous regions, is still well behind many of the regions in Europe. The poorer regions in the United Kingdom are way behind the European average. That is a measure of how far the Government have misused our oil wealth.
The cumulative loss, in real terms, of the rate support grant from 1981–82 and 1988–89 is £27·7 billion. If the hon. Member for Hallam and the Government had stuck to the Labour Government's policy, even accepting that there was a standstill at that time, local authorities would have had an additional £27 billion to spend. Of the 20 local authorities that levied the sharpest rate rises in the 1980s—the Minister tried to dodge round the parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) who, sadly, cannot be here—half were in Tory-controlled areas. Six of those which levied the sharpest rate rises were Labour authorities, two are hung councils run by Labour. Eight of them are run by Tories or Tories plus independents and four are run by the SLD, the SDP or hung—what we might call also-rans. At the other end of the scale, 21 councils have cut the rate, of which nine are Labour, and only one was rate-capped.
Evidence of the unfairness of the Government's cuts on local authorities is shown by the figures behind the percentages, and the percentages. They show that there is no link between rate rises and increased spending. That is why the council of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is in difficulty. The reason for the figures is the irrational grant system devised, developed and enhanced by this Government. They are also due to the individual needs and different procedures in local authority areas.
The Minister's constituency of Suffolk, Coastal has shown the second largest rate rise over seven years, 218 per cent. Spending has increased by only 132 per cent. So his local authority has been clobbered by its own Government. If I was a ratepayer in the Suffolk, Coastal constituency I would be asking questions not only about coastal defence, which the Minister is right to do, but about why on earth I was voting for a Tory Minister who was cheerfully increasing the rate burden on his constituents while public expenditure was being cut.
Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) explain what he would say to my constituents when they find out that they are 46th among districts in the poundage they pay, and that those who pay the most come
512
under Labour councils? We are changing the system to get rid of the very thing he has been complaining about. We are changing the system and he is not supporting it.
Mr. Soley: The Minister cannot wriggle out of it like that. The question for ratepayers in his area is why it is that their rates have risen far more than spending. Fundamentally, the reason—as everyone knows—is the rate support grant cuts made by this Government. There may be other reasons of needs and procedures for all local authorities, but the central reason is the RSG. The Minister cannot explain that to his constituents and he will have no way of softening the burden for them, although he will try, because the Government have tried, through this rate support grant, to bridge the gap between rates and the poll tax. They were embarrassed by the figures that were put out by the Labour party which showed how severe the poll tax would be. To try to soften the blow, the Government have spent rather more this year than in previous years—not much more, but a bit more. If they are to survive the argument politically, they must make the rates and the poll tax more in line than they would have been had the figures been left as they were in the previous year. At the same time, they try to put the blame for increasing the poll tax on to local authorities.
I give the Government full credit—if that is the word—for their incredible skill at deception, which I consider to be immoral. This Government, more than any other that I have experienced, have managed to blame other people for matters for which they are responsible. They do that whether they are talking about law and order, homelessness, rates or taxes. It is always somebody else's fault—usually the fault of someone who is in a weaker position than the Government. That shows the moral bankruptcy of this Government.
As a result of the £22·7 billion cut, in real terms, local authorities of all complexions have had to cope with a devastating and unpredictable financial regime. I cannot emphasise that enough. The Conservative party tells us that it is the party of efficiency in business. What efficient business would try to plan expenditure on the basis that it often did not know how much it would receive from a regular grant-making body—often until a few weeks before the grant was made? Yet that is what the Government have imposed on local authorities, whether they are Labour, Tory, Liberal or whatever. It is gross to put local authorities in that position.
The introduction of the poll tax imposes additional financial burdens this year. I have two questions for the Minister on that, if I may have his attention, or perhaps the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will answer them in her winding-up speech. First, will there be an increase in the Government contribution if the poll tax preparation costs are higher than forecast? I have asked that question because the basis on which the Government have calculated those costs is considerably lower than that being forecast now, as the Government seem to be acknowledging. If that turns out to be the case, local authorities will have to find that money and Mr. Rentaquote, the hon. Member for Ealing, North, will stand up in the House and talk about wicked local authorities. However, those local authorities will have had to put up rates to pay for the administration of a poll tax that almost all local authorities think is unfair and irrational. Will the Minister tell us whether, if the costs are higher than forecast, the Government will fund those increased costs?

513
Secondly, I want to ask the Minister, or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, about inflation. He used a figure of 2 per cent. and I told him what the independent view was. I shall now give my view. The rate support grant that we are discussing today is based on 4 per cent. inflation in 1989–90. Does anybody believe that inflation will be only 4 per cent. in 1989–90? Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer believe that? No, he says that there will be a bleep—[HON. MEMBERS: "A blip."] The blip will push inflation up to at least 6 per cent. and most observers of the economy believe that inflation will be at least 7 per cent. and, possibly, even 8 per cent.
Mr. John Battle: My hon. Friend may be aware that in the Electricity Bill, which is in Committee at present, the Government have estimated that inflation will be 8 per cent.
Mr. Soley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a member of the Committee, for keeping us informed of the latest moves in the Chancellor's ever-moving strategy. Let us assume that inflation will be 7 or 8 per cent. 1 want to know—either now or at the end of the debate—whether, if inflation turns out to be 7 or 8 per cent., the Government will uprate the present rate support grant to meet that. The Minister can simply answer yes or no. It the Government do not do that, every local authority—whether Labour, Tory or Liberal—will know who to blame. There is no doubt that inflation will increase the rate burden on people. If the Minister is so desperately concerned—as he tried to tell us he was—about the effect of rate increases on the people and if his prediction of 2 per cent. is wildly wrong—as we all know it will be because of inflation, if nothing else—will his concern extend to telling the Secretary of State that he must uprate the rate support grant to take account of the full costs of inflation? If he does not do so, let him never come to the House again and tell us that he is concerned about the poor ratepayers who have to pick up the bill when it comes through their letter boxes. Those bills will have risen because of his Government's behaviour.
The 2 per cent. mark is well below what is expected, so the costs will hit people in their pockets. But it will also hit people in their services. The Government have suddenly discovered nursery education. They want good nursery education because the Prime Minister has suddenly discovered that it is popular. The top 24 providers of education in nursery schools for three and four-year-olds are all Labour authorities. On the other hand, the bottom 19 are all Tory authorities—or Social and Liberal Democratic authorities in a couple of cases. Yet the Government have said that nursery education is a good thing and they have apparently discovered that we are light years behind the rest of western Europe in the provision of nursery education. The Government have said nothing, but they must have discovered that Labour local authorities are doing the most for nursery education. What did the Government do to some of those authorities? They rate-capped them. So much for the concern about nursery education. If the Government had any concern about nursery education, they would not be talking about setting up committees to consider it and to make recommendations. They would do what the Labour party did in office and what Governments in Europe have been doing for far
514
longer than us. They would allow local authorities—which are properly elected, democratic local authorities—to spend their money on nursery education.
We know that children who receive nursery education do better at school, in their social behaviour, in training for skills and in employment-seeking and functioning. But the Government did not care about that. They were quite happy to rate-cap local authorities that provided good nursery education. It was not their kids, was it? Those authorities could be clobbered. I see that the Minister has again sunk his chin into his shirt—which is, perhaps, the best place to keep it. He has done so to avoid not only the Government's embarrassment over their lack of support for the poor, but to avoid putting their money where their mouth is on education.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman would give us comparative figures if he were to put back in them the voluntary playgroups that are provided inside county council education premises in and near primary schools.
Mr. Soley: Who provided the premises and the heating but the ratepayer? Who tells us over and over again that nursery education must be well funded? The Government tell us. The hon. Gentleman said that nursery education must be provided on a voluntary basis. Why does he not tell the Prime Minister? She says she wants to put money into nursery education. Let us not talk about voluntary efforts. I admire the voluntary contribution, but nobody in his right mind—certainly nobody on the other side of the English channel, from where so much of our competition will come in the future—believes for one moment that the voluntary sector can provide all nursery education. It is a pretty desperate state of affairs if the hon. Gentleman has to fall back on that to defend his party.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that it is not just the Labour local authorities that make up the top 24 in the league table that have an impressive record on nursery education. In the period 1975–80, under the last Labour Government, the pace of nursery provision—both in nursery schools and in rising-fives places in primary schools—was much quicker and sharper than at any time in the lifetime of this Government.
Mr. Richard Caborn rose—
Mr. Soley: I shall give way for the last time, to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn).
Mr. Caborn: Do not the Government realise that the removal of the community programme has been one of the major factors contributing to cuts in nursery education—particularly for the under-fives and in the inner cities? That has had a devastating effect. Although the local authorities have provided buildings, heating and so on, I he real service has come through the community programme and a considerable number of places are now to go as a result of the Government's attitude to it.
Mr. Soley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that point, which had momentarily escaped me. We know that that is having a dramatic effect.
The Under-Secretary of State will know that her own area, West Sussex, is bottom of the league in providing nursery education. [HON. MEMBERS: "Surrey, South-West!"] I do not mind being wrong about the Minister's constituency; that is not the problem. West

515
Sussex, the neighbouring area to it, is bottom of the league. In the south one does not have to look far to find some pretty bad Conservative local authorities. For example, in Horsham an empty council house was given over for use as an office by none other than the Horsham Conservative party. The authority had to provide the local Conservative party with an alternative office because of redevelopment—that was quite right—but it did not have to give it an empty council house at a time when there are homeless people in the streets. We should not merely condemn such authorities. We should ensure that they make good use of their properties to house the homeless.
It seems that the Minister wants to pick on individual local authorities, but it would be far better if instead the Government addressed themselves to the drastic decline in the provision of low-cost accommodation for rent or sale, particularly in the south. For many people, there is no alternative to that, which is why men, women and children have to sleep in the streets—not just in London but now in many of our towns and villages. That is what is so wicked. If the Government are so concerned about these things, why do they not put more money into housing, education and care in the community? We have heard all this talk about the closure of long-stay psychiatric hospitals and support in the community, but where will that support come from if the councils cannot provide it?
Some years ago the Government embarked on a profoundly dangerous course. They have not only damaged the morale and confidence of council workers and councillors, who do their job voluntarily; they have increased centralised control in Britain. The Minister should bear in mind the development of local authorities in Europe. After the disaster of world war 2 one of the first acts of the countries that had experienced dictatorship was to devolve powers to local authorities. They made sure that local electors could decide who was doing a good job. They did not rely on papers like The Sun or The Evening Standard or on Ministers to say that such and such an authority was of the loony Left or the loony Right and should be got rid of. They left it to the electors to decide. I would rather do the same, even in Horsham and West Sussex. I would not say that we should undermine those councils or chuck them out. That is up to the local electorate to decide.
When Franco went, the first thing that the newly elected democratic Government did in Spain was to devolve power to local authorities, because they knew that pluralism is essential to democracy, and pluralism means good local government. One cannot have good local government unless one encourages people to stand for office, supports them when they do so, and ensures that they have genuine powers to use. If we move towards some form of united Europe, Ministers will not like it if Brussels starts treating them as they are treating local authorities. Perhaps that is why some of them are getting increasingly worried about the prospect, although that has wider implications. If, like the Opposition, the Government believe in local democracy, let them fund it properly and allow it to get on with the job, and allow the local electorate to decide whether that job is being done properly.
5.26 pm
Sir David Price: I shall resist the temptation to try to answer in detail a number of questions asked by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). I would take the House back a long way to the days of the royal commissions. I remember pointing out then that discussing the reform of local government in terms of geography and function without discussing taxation and finance was like putting on Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. The failure to do that has haunted us ever since and we are at last beginning painfully to address ourselves to it.
A new element with which I am closely involved is loosely called care in the community—the hon. Member for Hammersmith touched on it briefly— and I await with great interest the Government's response to the Griffiths report and look forward to hearing how the Government intend to handle care in the community, and, above all, to finance it. I think that the good Sir Roy Griffiths dodged all the main issues, and wrote a rather general injunction to those who went along with his organisational proposition that he who wills the end must will the means. That was nice shorthand but it does not help the House by telling us how we ought to finance care in the community.
Having made that general point, I do not apologise for coming right down to the particular. It is a good idea to see how those complicated matters work in the particular. It will not surprise the House that in this case the particular is the borough of Eastleigh. We are very unhappy at the manner we are being treated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his proposed rate support grant settlement for 1989–90. Under that settlement, we in Eastleigh are to suffer a loss of more than 36 per cent. We appear to have been selected by my right hon. Friend for particularly harsh treatment.
If we look at how our neighbours in the other districts of Hampshire have been treated—equity is not unimportant in these matters—we find that a number have been given a percentage increase, while the vast majority are to suffer only a modest reduction. Portsmouth is to get an increase of 6·66 per cent., Gosport an increase of 6·25 per cent. and Havant an increase of 5·71 per cent. Southampton is to get an increase of 5·48 per cent., and I can hardly complain about that as I also represent part of Southampton. My right hon. Friend gets brownie points for that. In East Hampshire and Hart, there is no change, and no authority is to suffer a reduction of more than just over 8 per cent.—in the case of Test Valley—yet Eastleigh is to suffer a reduction of 36·27 per cent.
Naturally, we have taken up the matter with my right hon. Friend, and he can congratulate his civil servants on producing a reply that would do justice to any episode of "Yes, Minister". That letter alone would justify at least two programmes. In an idle moment, if my right hon. Friend has one, he will be good for two programmes.
My right hon. Friend described the adverse treatment which is selected for Eastleigh in his letter thus:
"The reason for Eastleigh's particular position is that its rateable value is increasing faster than the average, while our assessment of its need to spend shows an increase only in line with the average, so that each year your authority receives more from the rates, even without increasing the rate poundage".
If we compare Eastleigh with our neighbours in the Test valley, we find broad comparability, both of population and of rateable value. Our populations differ by the

517
enormous amount of 0·5 per cent. When we look at the rateable value, the difference between us just makes 2 per cent. On that basis, how can a difference between a reduction of about 8 per cent. and one of more than 36 per cent. be justified? I could show even more of an inequity with Winchester, where the reduction is only 3·26 per cent. I hope that I have made my point; I will not labour it any further.
Eastleigh borough council also tells me:
"Whilst it is true that our rateable values have increased, the resultant increase in rate income is only some £120,000, compared with our grant loss of £162,000. That acknowledged loss of £162,000 is a comparison with the revised grant settlement for the current year. Compared with the original settlement, the loss is over £200,000."
As we all know, the mathematics of the rate support grant is byzantine in the extreme. Nevertheless, I had hoped that the basic "Axioms" of Euclid could be accepted and applied by the statisticians in my right hon. Friend's Department. Perhaps I am wrong and it was the augurer to the Department rather than the statistician who produced the RSG. No doubt a mythical wyvern was disembowelled in Marsham street to see which way its liver went; hence, Eastleigh got hammered. Hon. Members will recall the "Axioms" of Euclid, which stated:
"Things equal to the same thing, are equal.
If equals are added to equals, the sums are equal.
If equals are subtracted from equals, the remainders are equal.
Things which coincide with one another are equal to one another."
On the basis of Euclid, I suggest that Eastleigh should receive the same treatment as the Test Valley borough council and the city of Winchester.
We must now revise the "Axioms" of Euclid and at the end of each axiom write:
"Things equal to the same thing are equal, except in the case of Eastleigh"
and so down through the axioms—always excepting Eastleigh.
Doubtless the Department prefers a different branch of mathematics—more up to date than Euclid—which is the mathematics of topology. I do not know how familiar right hon. and hon. Members are with the mathematics of topology, but it is described as the mathematics of distortion. We presented these distortions—this topological argument—to my right hon. Friend and gave him an opportunity to restore some equity into his proposals for Eastleigh. He will know that there is another branch of mathematics called network analysis in which it is possible to find one's way out of a maze by use of an especially complex set of equations. I am told that it is even more complicated than the maze itself, which again would do justice to the mathematics of the rate support grant. However, he scorned our advances. He said in his letter:
"We decided that we should not amend the settlement in a way which would give Eastleigh more grant."
Therefore, he had his chance. That was not pure determinism but an act of free will, which I know my right hon. Friend practises and believes in.
I have not dwelt on the needs and expenditure side of the equation, because that would be to try to describe that which is inexplicable. I invite hon. Members to look, for instance, at appendix 2 to annex J, entitled "Definitions of GRE Indicators". As an example, let us look at C9, which states:
"Residents—effects of area's social conditions."
518
That is an object with which we would all agree Need should include social background and the problems in inner cities. We read in the appendix:
"The resident population of the area multiplied by the sum expressed to two decimal places, of the factors below:"
Ten factors are then listed. I shall give the House the relish of those factors. The first one is a constant of minus 41·82. I ask the House, why minus 41·82? Why not 40? Why not 39? Why not 50? Why this curious accuracy of 41·82? Obviously, some statistician has made the elegant point that it is not 41·0 but 41.82. I must confess that the reason for that escapes me.
We come to (b), which is interesting:
"indicator B3a(i) divided by population (Al), multiplied by 0.21233a".
I will give the top prize for topology to anyone who can tell me the basis upon which that has been worked out.
Mr. Gummer: Could I claim my hon. Friend's prize? So impossible to explain is it that we have kicked the entire thing over. We shall not do it again on this system. He is entirely right—it is absolutely unacceptable.
Sir David Price: That is well established. On the subject of local government, I am sure that the House can now understand why those wise city fathers of Florence at the end of the 13th century passed laws against—I translate from Italian—the then "upstart" decimal numerals. They were needed to protect honest citizens from the easy changes which forgers of bank drafts could ring on the numbers 0, 6 and 9. I would just say "è sempre vero".
The GRE formulae remind me of the Schleswig-Holstein situation, which taxed the diplomats and politicians of Europe through the 19th century. It was said that it was so complex that there were only three people who knew the answer to the question—the first was dead, the second had gone mad and the third had forgotten the answer. I have a feeling that that is what has happened over GRE and its remarkably complex rate support grant formula.
My right hon. Friend, in intervening, has saved me from quoting his letter, where he declared complete dissatisfaction with the rate support grant system, which share with him. He says that that is the reason why the Government will be abolishing it and replacing it with a needs grant in future years. When that happy day comes, my right hon. Friend will have my enthusiastic support. However, for the present settlement he cannot in conscience expect my acquiescence in this harsh treatment that he is meting out uniquely to Eastleigh in Hampshire. An especially masochistic twist of that treatment is that Eastleigh loses grant because of the way in which the safety net operates. I say: some safety net!
5.38 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I found the speech of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) most entertaining, but I hope he will forgive me if I do not respond to the points he made about Eastleigh but make a rather broader speech. I hope, too, that he will find that what I have to say will in some measure support the case he so eloquently made to the Minister.
The first problem is that the Government have grossly inadequately estimated the amount that local authorities should spend. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastleigh will agree that that is the starting point; I hope the

519
Minister can be convinced of it as well. Time and again, three reasons have been put to the Minister why this is so. He may feel that he has answered them, but few others do.
First, the Government's expenditure estimates are under-estimates. According to their own officials' figures, as set out by the grant working group—the expenditure steering group of local and central government—the Government have undercut local authorities by £400 million. So even on Government officials' estimates, the sum has been reduced. This same working group anticipates a sum of £180 million, which the Association of County Councils believes will no longer be met.
As we have already heard, the forecast of inflation at 4 per cent. in the expenditure provision for 1989–90 is inaccurate. In July, the Secretary of State for the Environment could say that the increase of 4·7 per cent. was above the expected rate of inflation. The Chancellor wants to take mortgage interest rates out of his calculation of inflation. He should look around the corner at the Secretary of State for the Environment, who appears to have done that already—and more! If the increased provision for poll tax costs of £110 million is removed—that in itself is inadequate—the increase is only 4·3 per cent. Although the rate of inflation was 4·8 per cent. in July, it has dramatically increased since, and now stands at 6·4 per cent. The forecasts are that it will continue to rise.
I raised this matter during the brief debate on the Rate Support Grants Act 1988. I asked the Government then to introduce some flexibility to cater for rising inflation. Now I ask the Minister again to do that.
Secondly, and in addition to this small rise, the Government have imposed pay increases higher than 4 per cent. on local authorities. They have asked the board to investigate the possibility of an increase of 5·1 per cent. for teachers. There are rumours that more will be needed to ensure adequate recruitment. That is all very well—I believe that teachers deserve these rises and I am sure the Minister does, too—but if central Government imposed these increases, why will they not fund them? Why are local authorities to be penalised for Government decisions?
These are not the only wage increases above 4 per cent. Local authorities will not be able to tell their workers that at a time of inflation of more than 6 per cent. they should get only 4 per cent. Local authorities are expected to pick up the tab, when the person who claims to be responsible for tackling inflation and for economic miracles—the Chancellor—has messed up and let inflation go over the odds. That is the Government's, not local authorities', responsibility.
Finally, it was assumed that local authorities which controlled education would be able to make savings by closing down schools because of falling rolls. But the Government's opting-out provision has effectively put a semi-permanent moratorium on local authorities closing down schools, because that provision does not allow them to close down schools that try to opt out. Almost by definition, schools trying to opt out are the ones facing closure. So the savings written into the rate support grant cannot be realised by local authorities, or at least not in the coming year—
Mr. Fatchett: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about surplus places and the dangers of the opt-out
520
provisions, but why do his Liberal colleagues in Liverpool campaign for schools to opt out of the local education authority?
Mr. Taylor: I will certainly not tell our councillors in Liverpool or anywhere else what to do. I am sure they know Liverpool better than I do—I hope the hon. Gentleman at least accepts that—but I am sure of this: there are good reasons on occasions for closing down schools, and, on others, for resisting closure—
Mr. McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tony Banks: Give him a chance: he is too busy wriggling out of my hon. Friend's question.
Mr. Taylor: I do not know about Liverpool, but one of the problems in my area is how to maintain adequate provision for small village and local schools when the Government will not allow the necessary cash to be spent. That forces the choice between maintaining them with less than adequate facilities for the sake of the local community, and combining them at the cost of local roots and connections. Each case must be judged on its own merits—
Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman said that he did not know all the circumstances in Liverpool, and of course we accept that. He then said there might be good reasons for schools to opt out. Why then did he vote against the Education Reform Act 1988, which allows them to do so?
Mr. Taylor: That is easily answered. The hon. Gentleman misheard me: I said there could be good reasons for closing schools, not for opting out.
Mr. Gummer: It may be difficult to ask the hon. Gentleman a specific question about Liverpool, whose particular problems we do not know. However, can he answer a general question about county councils that used to be Conservative-controlled but which, for the past four years, have been dominated by the Liberals or the SLD? Why, of those eight authorities, have seven become higher rate demanders, moving up towards the top of the rate league? Is it part of SLD policy to increase rates disproportionately compared with other authorities, all of which suffer the disadvantages that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned? That has nothing to do with the Government; it is a matter of comparison.
Mr. Taylor: There are two answers to that—[H0N. MEMBERS: "Yes and No."] Average rate rises in councils run by us and in those in which we are the leading group have been lower than rises in Conservative and Labour-controlled authorities.
Secondly, I offer an example from Cornwall of why more money is being spent. Again, it concerns schools. In the past, so little was spent on capital expenditure for schools—on maintaining and rebuilding them—that 70 or 80 schools still have outside toilets. There are schools with leaking roofs, schools that have to close classrooms in high winds for fear that they will be blown down, and schools in which books and teaching provision are inadequate. Some schools have been kept open only by dint of sharing music teachers, and so on.
Therefore, before we led these councils, they had ducked spending and not invested as they should have. Now we have to increase investment. Even after all that,

521
we are not in a position to meet the targets that the Government want for schools—they will not allow us to spend enough to do that.
Mr. Gummer: I wonder whether that explanation would stand up in Cambridgeshire, which has, under different authorities, had a good reputation for education. When it was controlled by the Conservatives, it was 34th in the list. Since the Liberals became dominant, it has moved up to 25th. The same applies to Essex, Hertfordshire, Oxfordshire, Somerset, Wiltshire and Devon. That seems a little beyond an accident. It seems that, when people chose to be dominated by the Liberals, their rates are consistently pushed up out of proportion. Quite rightly, the hon. Gentleman has not commented on any one council. Is that on the directions of SLD headquarters? Is that the policy of the SLD or is it the accidental conjunction of many local SLD councillors always coming to the same conclusion that they ought to increase rates?
Mr. Taylor: The one consistent point in the Minister's intervention was contained in the examples of councils that he gave the House, because the previous Conservative administrations were not providing an adequate level of service, and we have been moving in the right direction by increasing services. He mentioned Cambridge. I think he would accept that under us it has pioneered many educational changes and the Government have followed us. One such change is in local financial control.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Hon. Members should not pass between the Chair and the Member who is addressing the House.
Mr. Taylor: Perhaps I should return to the essence of my speech.
Mr. Fatchett rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Far be it from me to try to get round you even for the sake of hon. Members sitting behind me.
A relevant part of these figures is that the aggregate Exchequer grant has fallen from 46·2 per cent. in 1988–89 to 43·3 per cent. in 1989–90. That cut is partly as a result of the transfer of the funding of polytechnics. However, even after that adjustment, central Government support to ratepayers continues to decrease from the 1979–80 level of 61 per cent. That is another reason for many of the higher-than-inflation rate increases that the Minister likes to mention.
According to local authority representatives on the joint local authorities-central Government expenditure groups, the Government expenditure provision is inadequate by about £1 billion, and that figure is merely to maintain current levels of service, not to improve them. Sadly, as a result local authorities will be forced to increase rates and the Minister will attack them for doing so. The truth is that the responsibility for such rises falls directly on the Minister.
Earlier, I spoke about the costs of introducing the poll tax and said that, by sleight of hand, the 4·8 per cent. increase that local authorities are meant to get included direct provision for the introduction of the poll tax. Since the commencement of that implementation, it has become
522
clear that insufficient finance has been set aside for it. I understand that, in Scotland, £18 million was granted for the introduction of the poll tax, and that costs are now running at about £28 million.
Many councils will have to increase their levels of new technology to meet the poll tax requirements. Birmingham estimates that the hardware will cost £4 million and that the community charge will cost £15 million a year to collect compared with the present figure of £6 million for the collection of rates.
Another example is Harborough district council in Leicestershire. In 1989, its rate support grant was cut by 40 per cent. The Government have contributed £71,000 to setting up a poll tax department, but the council thinks that it will cost an extra £262,000. One of our councils, Adur, has been severely penalised by the arbitrary system of the rate support grant. The leader of that council wrote to the Secretary of State on 10 January. He said:
"Grant for 1989–90 is now set at £59,000 compared with £95,000 for 1988–89. Your promise that Pell Tax implementation costs would be met through the BSG system does not seem to apply to this Council despite a specific grant of £60,000 for 1989–90. The costs of implementation which are likely to easily exceed a quarter of a million pounds will very regrettably have to be passed on to the ratepayer. Could I remind you that in 1983–84 my Council received approximately one million pounds in Block Grants and if any form of fairness were to prevail, then this Council is owed at least five million pounds since that time?"
That shows the inequality in the grant system because Adur council's neighbours, Hove and Worthing—councils of a different political complexion—are to receive grants of £8·131 million and £3·.874 million respectively for next year. Adur spends £81 per head, while Hove spends £99, and the figure for Worthing is £77. In effect, £12 million is dished out to Adur's neighbours while Adur is forced to increase its rates to maintain the current level of services. The point that was correctly made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh applies equally in this case. He said that the Government have not acted to help some councils through a difficult time that has arisen because of the Government's policies.
I shall now deal with the supplementary reports for 1985–86 to 1988–89. The announcement on 6 July 1988 to freeze grant entitlements for the years 1985–86 to 1988–89 demonstrates the arbitrary nature of the procedure. I do not want to say any more than that, because I have spoken about this matter before. I plead with the Minister to reconsider. He should set the figures from the time that those councils were asked to report, and not from a time a few weeks before, which none of them could have anticipated.
We should also look at the question of block grants versus specific grants. The Minister has said that bad councils are a rare exception, a caricature rather than characteristic. However, time after time the Government have consistently moved from block grant to specific grant. They are saying that they do not trust local government or councillors. That means that they do not trust local people to make decisions affecting their own areas. Whatever the specific grant may be for—perhaps for introducing the poll tax—it should be given to the local authority, which should be allowed to set its priorities. Local people should be allowed to say what they want to see, and things should not be imposed on them. The Government will not do that because they do not believe

523
in local government but merely in local administration which, given the current restraints that are in force, could be carried out as well by civil servants as by councils.
5.57 pm
Sir George Young: I am sure that all hon. Members would wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) on his speech which made local government both interesting and funny. If it is any consolation to him, Eastleigh's loss of grant is Ealing's gain. Against the background of a generous settlement, the decision by the council to increase by 35 per cent. its domestic rates is almost inexplicable. I shall return to that.
The rate support grant settlement is generous. When my right hon. Friend the Minister started his speech there were just three Opposition Members in the House, so the Benches were hardly seething with indignation about the lack of generosity by the Government. I should like to quote from the article that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) prayed in aid when he sought to portray this settlement as unreasonable. It is a quote from an article by Tony Travers in the Local Government Chronicle of 13 January. It says:
"The Government has, both in terms of expenditure and grant, ended the 1980s in a far more generous mood than it started."
Talking about inflation, Mr. Travers says:
"If authorities budget for 7% inflation, with no change in balances, average rate increases would be closer to 6%-7%."
That is a long way adrift of the 35 per cent. that my constituents are facing on the assumptions put forward by Mr. Travers. I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith will not try to defend the rate rise in Ealing.
Mr. Bernie Grantrose—
Sir George Young: I shall develop my argument a little and then I shall give way.
For two reasons it is important to have a fair settlement. First, it enables central Government to look local government squarely in the eye and say, "We have provided a realistic settlement in the interests of sensible rate increases. Will you now please play your part?" Of course such a posture is less credible if the settlement is ungenerous or unrealistic.
Secondly, I hope that this settlement marks the beginning of a better relationship between local government and central Government. Pressure has been put on that relationship during the past ten years. The responsibility rests mainly on a small number of local authorities which broke through unilaterally the conventions that had governed local government for many decades. As with the trade union movement, there is now an outbreak of realism and a new mood within local government. Central Government can now respond to that new mood and try to build bridges. The appointment of both my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has been warmly welcomed within local government and I hope that that marks the beginning of an improvement in relationships with local government generally.
May I now turn to the specific position of Ealing and quote from the article to which I referred earlier in which Tony Travers said:
524
"A significant shift of grant from the counties to London, particularly to the non central inner boroughs, will be seen in 1989–90. This pattern is a repeat of earlier years."
Ealing is a non-inner London borough. In 1989–90, Ealing will receive £72·9 million of block grant, an increase of £8 million or 11 per cent. over 1987–88, after taking account of the adjustment for polytechnics. The GREA increases for Ealing are 9·7 per cent., so a greater proportion of local needs will be met in grant next year than in the current year. Ealing is also receiving an extra £2·8 million from the supplementary reports.
Against that background, it has been reliably estimated that Ealing needs only increase its local rate by about 3 per cent. next year, following a reduction of almost 25 per cent. this year as a result of rate capping. That is why my constituents are astonished at the initial decision of the policy committee to increase the rates by 35 per cent. Two years ago, Ealing won the cup for the highest rate increase, 66 per cent. There are slight differences according to the basis that one takes, but, at that time, it was generally recognised that Ealing had the largest rate increase in the country. Its attempt to win the trophy for a second year running was rightly frustrated by the Government's decision to rate-cap it and rescue my constituents. This year, we have a 25 per cent. reduction. It has now crept under the rate-capping wire and has started the rate-making season this year with a figure of 35 per cent. which remains to be confirmed at the council meeting.
The creative accountant has run out of work to do. The accounts in Ealing are as creative as a sandcastle built on the edge of an incoming tide. If we consider the figures for the current year, we see that expenditure was buoyed up by £14 million from balances and £17 million from what are called "Funds" of uncertain pedigree. Even with that, Ealing has overspent by £7 million which means that it approaches next year £38 million short. It was warned last year by the director of finance that it had adopted a high-risk strategy, but it paid no attention.
One might have expected that, with a high level of spending, we would enjoy good services in Ealing. In the light of what was said in the consultation paper on rate support grant settlement, I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that the Government money that we are voting tonight is securing a good level of services. Paragraph 13 of that document states:
"The Secretary of State considers that these control totals are sufficient for the level of service and efficiency which he considers is appropriate in respect of each service."
One important duty of local authorities is building control to ensure public safety in the construction of new buildings. Building control is self-financing. The fees that one pays to have one's building inspected cover the cost. My constituent, Mr. Morton, of 13 Arlington Road, wants to do some work to his house. He sent off a cheque and asked for building regulation approval and a surveyor to come round. He received a letter from the chief building surveyor, dated 12 December, which stated:
"Due to staff shortage"—
there are now 1,500 more staff than there were when the Tories left office—
"the Council's Building Surveyors are unable to inspect your work."
What is Mr. Morton to do? He cannot run the risk of doing work in breach of the regulations when he has been warned by the council. The chief building surveyor went on to say:
"In the event of a specific contravention being brought to my notice, appropriate action would be taken."

525
The council is not carrying out its obligations so far as building regulations are concerned and is in effect telling people that they cannot build an extension to their homes.
Mr. Soley: I understand the hon. Gentleman taking the opportunity to knock Ealing council. He is from a different political party and is entitled to do so. However, he should give a fair analysis of the situation. I am glad that he recognises that the decision about rate increases has not yet been made. More importantly, he is now talking about the local authority using money efficiently. He knows that the Government have not answered the question about the use of bed and breakfast accommodation in Ealing and about allowing housing associations to use it profitably for one year. I understand that he supported the decision of Ealing council to try to do a deal with the private sector to provide extra housing. That deal was cancelled by the Government. Let us have both sides of the picture.
Sir George Young: I note that the hon. Gentleman did not seek to defend the action of Ealing council in not carrying out its obligations under building control regulations. I am being asked tonight to vote for rate support grant to fund services in Ealing that are not being provided.
Mr. Gummer: The real issue in Ealing is the competent use of money; it is not a party political issue. If Ealing has this money, why cannot it provide the services that other authorities with less money are able to provide? Is some of that money being used for things which are not necessary and which the ratepayers in Ealing do not wish to fund, particularly if it means that they have to forgo ordinary services? There are few who would wish to fund an investigation into the deprivation of Irish women in Ealing. Most would prefer to see that the building control surveyors did their job.
Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend is right. The Labour party does itself no credit by seeking to defend the indefensible with regard to incompetent Labour authorities. It would do far better if it said, "It is no part of our manifesto to stand behind authorities like Ealing. We wish to see them perform slightly better."
One way in which the council could have saved money is by not writing to my constituent Mrs. Miller. She is a pensioner who does not enjoy good health. She received a final notice and a summons for her rates last November, but she was convinced that she did not owe the money. None the less, she was frightened and borrowed the money and paid. I made some inquiries and, on 13 January, the director of finance wrote to Mrs. Miller. He said:
"You were initially sent a Final Notice and Summons as the Housing Benefit Department made an error in their calculation of rebate which they have subsequently rectified. This means that you are now in credit by £129·04 which will be refunded to you as soon as possible. I apologise for the inconvenience caused in this matter."
Mrs. Miller had a miserable Christmas.
The council is not replying to letters as efficiently as my right hon. Friend no doubt wants. I wrote about Ms. Wright, of 26 Carisbrooke court. I received an answer dated 10 January which stated:
"I apologize for the delay in replying to your enquiry regarding Ms. Wright's application for transfer."
I wrote on 9 September.
The local authority has responsibility for housing benefit. Last year, we introduced transitional help for
526
people who missed out on housing benefit. One of my constituents, Mrs Keating, of 48 Cheriton close, applied to the unit in Glasgow for help; nothing happened. I have here a letter from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, dated 13 January, which states:
"The Transitional Payment Unit received Mrs. Coating's application on 9 August and on 11 August sent an enquiry form to Ealing District Council requesting Housing Benefit details pre and post April 1988. To date the form has not been returned but to avoid further delay the Unit obtained the relevant information by telephone and calculated Mrs. Coating's entitlement."
Mr. Dennis Turner: The hon. Gentleman does his case great harm by quoting these examples when he knows very well that the Government are responsible for the situation. The amendments to the social security legislation in April last year caused untold problems for local government in trying to deal with the backlog of applications. If there are delays, the fault rests fairly and squarely with the Government who made the changes. We urged the Government to face up to the situation in the Social Security Act 1986, but they did not do so and were forced to introduce wholesale amendments in April. It is the Government's fault.
Sir George Young: I have some respect for the hon. Gentleman. However, I hope that he is not defending the action of the London borough of Ealing in not replying to requests from a Department which wants to help a constituent who has had trouble finding rent. We are voting Ealing money tonight to carry out services. It is not carrying out those services and it should be doing that.
The planning department is meant to respond to applications for planning permission within 13 weeks. On 8 December 1988 my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment published a league table of London boroughs which processed planning applications within 13 weeks. The Labour-controlled borough of Barking and Dagenham processed 90 per cent. within 13 weeks. Good luck to it. Bromley did even better and processed 92 per cent. However, Ealing is right at the bottom of the table. It processed only 9 per cent. of planning applications within the statutory period.
Many of my constituents are trying to buy their homes from the London borough of Ealing. Mrs. Tobin a 92 St.Dunstan's avenue applied to purchase her home last February. Her property was valued in April, but she still has not been told its value. Many of my constituents have found the same problem and cannot buy their homes within the statutory period under legislation passed by this House.
Ealing is taking Mr. William Smith to court. He is 95 years old and house-bound. Everyone has tried to stop Ealing doing that, including Mr. Smith's homehelp, a chief superintendent of police and myself. However, he is still being taken to court although he is completely incapable of leaving the house.
Refuse collection in Ealing over Christmas was an absolute disaster.The Leader on 13 January reported:
"Town hall staff were flooded with angry calls when dustmen took a 10-day holiday over Christmas and New Year.
Council officers apologised for the mess outside homes caused by uncollected black sacks and promised to sort out the backlog."

527
When the Tories left office in Ealing I understand there were about 88 families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. There are now 1,223. Part of the reason for the increase is Ealing's more generous approach to applications for homelessness. To its credit, it has changed its policy and made it slightly tighter. However, that increased figure poses real problems in terms of planning as more hostels receive planning permission within the borough. Expenditure on bed and breakfast could be reduced sharply if the large number of voids in my constituency were filled.
By citing those examples today, I want to try to explain why people in my constituency are not receiving the service to which they are entitled. I hope that Opposition Members would not defend the level of services in Ealing. I am being asked to vote this evening for another £9 million of taxpayers' money. Obviously my constituents and I would like an assurance that if that increase in money is approved this evening, we will get better services than we have received so far.
Two years ago there was a 66 per cent. rate increase in Ealing. That caused damage within the borough. Employers were less able to invest or pay wage increases because of the higher rates. People had less money to spend in the shops because they had higher rates to pay. People who were thinking of moving to the borough changed their minds. That damage was contained for two reasons. First, at roughly the same time as the rate increase the Budget reduced taxes and to some extent counterbalanced the higher local taxes. Secondly, the Government intervened very promptly in July and announced that for the following year Ealing would be rate capped. People then realised that their problem would be relatively short-lived and they could see some light at the end of the tunnel.
When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, will she tell us what is the timescale for announcements about rate capping or poll tax capping for next year? What are the criteria likely to be? Can my constituents expect some help from the Government so that when the Labour-controlled council—as I fear Labour will still control the council in a year's time—fixes the rates, we will not be exposed to yet another rate increase like this year's and some help will be forthcoming from the Government? When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I hope that she can shine that ray of hope on my constituents.
6.14 pm
Mr. John Battle: When the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) opened his remarks, he referred to the Minister's bridge-building task. I support the hon. Gentleman's call for the Minister to adopt a constructive approach to local government.
When I listened to the Minister for Local Government today I got the impression that he is fixed in the oppositional mode in the way that he challenged the policies of the Social and Liberal Democrats and the Labour party. He still seems to be fighting the last general election, if not the one before that.
In his introduction the Minister referred to sensibly run local government as the norm for local authorities. However, his comments seemed to be in the context of a tirade based on the bad practices of some authorities, but
528
aimed generally at all local government. He had a tone of malice in his voice which developed into a regular rant against local government. When the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State replies I urge her to assure us that, instead of continuing their assault on local government, the Government are really interested in solidly supporting it.
Although the Minister said that sensibly run local government is the norm for local authorities, after this rate support grant settlement, what will happen to the sensibly run local authorities which constitute the norm? There might be some surprises. For example, Leeds has never been rate-capped and the Minister might call it a model of a sensibly run local authority. At this point I would like to pay a brief tribute to the council's retired leader, Councillor George Mudie, who led the city council for the past 10 years. His grasp of local government arithmetic was second to none. I wish his successor, Councillor Jon Trickett, well and congratulate him on reaching that post. However, he is up against it because the Government are stacking the odds against that sensibly run city council.
Deficit financing is an issue which has come before this House within the past 12 months since I have been a Member of this House. By making prudent provision for those proposals, Leeds was caught by the retrospective rules for the financial year 1984–85. Due to a minor technicality in the earmarking of reserves for the financial year 1985–86, the council was again caught by the retrospective rules in that year. All the council did was to transfer £7 million from the general fund to a specific fund. If we consider the transfer of higher education funding, it is clear that within the settlement the grant has been reduced by the full amount of expenditure on the polytechnic in Leeds although Leeds had only received 41 per cent. of that amount in grant.
The figures show clearly that Leeds fares badly in comparison with other local authorities in west Yorkshire and elsewhere. Despite repeated representations to the Department of Education and Science about the unfairness of that matter, the ratepayers of Leeds are being penalised to the tune of £4 million. Reference has been made to metropolitan districts whose spending is equal to or below grant-related expenditure in 1988–89. Solihull was referred to and its spending is 96 per cent. of GREA. Leeds is equal to GREA. In other words, it spends at the Government guidelines. Obviously the council has well interpreted all the tables which the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) referred us to earlier. It has matched up to the figures it is expected to reach. However, its grant has been reduced from 43 per cent. in 1987–88 to 41 per cent. in 1988–89. In other words, its grant will fall by £7·3 million in 1988–89 even though its rates are the lowest in west Yorkshire.
There must be a deeper strategy behind the Government's policy. It seems that the Government are deliberately forcing up the rates in Leeds because they cannot offer or sell their poll tax proposals as a palliative to high rates because the poll tax will be higher than the rates. In order to disguise the fact that the poll tax will massively increase people's bills, the Government are deliberately forcing up rates. That is a strategy to cushion the introduction of the poll tax. The present cost of living in Leeds under a Labour-controlled authority is much lower than it will be once the poll tax is introduced. Even

529
the Conservative councillors of Leeds know that and are relieved that there will be no local elections this year in which that view can be challenged.
The Prime Minister took an incredibly backward stance in an interview last year in the Financial Times, entitled "Vision 2000". She referred to the great Victorian merchants as models for local authorities. Her vision of local government is that it should go back to the days of the local burghers—centrally selected, power personalities who run local authorities and businesses, who will simply host one dinner a year at which they sit down and share out the tenders for the services that are left, such as sweeping the city streets.
But the Prime Minister's strategy is more vicious than simply handing local authorities over to the burghers and rubbing out locally elected members. The strategy seems to imply an appalling twist for the poor who live in inner cities throughout Britain. If, as the Minister for Local Government says, local taxation depends upon spending according to local needs, local authorities will not be able to compare their circumstances with their neighbours—something to which the hon. Member for Eastleigh referred—because each local authority will have to stand on its own feet, independent of neighbours and the Government. We shall not be able to make real comparisons.
Those areas in which the poor are concentrated will not be able to raise the revenue to support the services that their people need. Are we saying that, because people do not have sufficient income or a part in the booming economy which is so often talked of, they do not deserve basic services such as street cleaning, education for their children and housing? I hope that the Government are not pushing us down that road. It is still worth reflecting upon the fact that 2·5 million people are unemployed and there are high rates of unemployment in many northern towns and cities and in some areas of London. When the Government decide how to change the system and assess local needs, those facts need to be taken into account.
My area has a low-wage economy. Wage rates in west Yorkshire are lower than elsewhere. It is well known that 9·4 million people—40 per cent. of the working population—are on low wages. Conservative Members often suggest that the average wage of £254 per week is a national minimum. I remind them that those on low wages earn well below half that average wage. Therefore, their circumstances need supporting with local services.
Behind the myth of average computation, whether it be of wages or rates, the Government are hiding a policy that reduces local government's ability to respond. I urge the Government not to hide behind the myth of the national average. If they do, the poor will be penalised because local authorities will not be able to raise the revenue for the services that are required.
When local authorities are left to their own resources, local elections will be about whether the people are prepared to finance and support the poor in their areas. "Will you subsidise the poor?" is a question that we can see now appearing on election leaflets. That is a particularly divisive and invidious question which could arise in some areas. I hope that that is not a direction in which the Government are going.
I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Government are not taking the poor in our inner cities out of the national budget so that they no longer figure in the national budget and pushing them back on the local
530
authority, forcing them back on the local parish as seemed to be the suggestion in the interview with the Prime Minister to which I referred earlier. I hope that the local authorities will not be left to sort out whether the poor receive services.
The Government have already laid down in legislation that everybody, regardless of their income or means, must pay at least 20 per cent. of the poll tax. That will hit families on low incomes, pensions and low wages particularly hard. I hope that we are not heading back in the direction of parish relief and ghetto politics.
I seem to recall that on election night the Prime Minister said about the inner cities, "We must get them next time." That hardly came over as a friendly overture. It did not seem to be a statement about rebuilding local communities and local economies. It seemed to be more about mugging local government. The Minister's tone this evening seems to reflect the Prime Minister's real intentions—if she does not like something she will abolish and replace it. That is a far remove from local democracy.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of what Lord Salisbury said in defence of the introduction of local government, because the Widdecombe report on local government sets out why local government was introduced in the first place. Lord Salisbury emphasised that we need strong local government, supported and defended as an essential check to central power. It should be supported in the House publicly by the Minister.
6.27 pm
Mr. Michael Carttiss: I am sure that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) will forgive me if I do not follow him down the path towards parish relief and ghetto politics. Equally, I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) in the interesting details that he has given of one local authority which clearly does not administer its affairs in the interests of the people that it is supposed to serve.
Although my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government in his robust opening of the debate talked about good local authorities being the norm, much of what the Government say and do about local authorities tends to lead to the suspicion that they regard the Ealings, Brents and Derbyshires as much more common than they really are. Therefore, I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that he knows that the vast majority of councils operate effectively and with good intent.
My right hon. Friend said that the rate support system is not easy to follow. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), in his elegant and witty contribution, surely knocked the last nail in the coffin of the rate support grant.
Unfortunately, right hon. and hon. Friends who have successively occupied the Government Front Bench in the five years that I have been a Member have similarly asserted that the rate support system is unfair and incomprehensible, but it has taken a long time to arrive at a new arrangement. I do not share my right hon. Friend's confidence that next year's revenue support grant will prove to be a much better system. As the interchange between the two Front Benches has indicated, it will still be necessary to identify needs and to measure them.
In my intervention, I drew attention to the current lack of provision in the revenue support grant for meeting the problems of authorities in seaside resorts that have a

531
coastal protection responsibility. It is no use my right hon. Friend saying that that is a matter for the local authority associations to overcome. I acknowledge that there needs to be greater awareness of the problem. As a member representing a seaside resort, it is a matter of concern to me that the Association of District Councils does not have on its committee examining the new system anyone from a seaside resort. However, I take the point made by my right hon. Friend, in his determination to ensure that all such matters will be carefully examined when the time comes.
When I first spoke in the rates support grants debate five years ago, I drew attention to the system's unfair application to Norfolk county council and its budget. I have been drawing attention to unfairnesses ever since. I have served on delegations to the Department of the Environment, together with other hon. Members and with East Anglia local authority leaders, in trying to secure recognition of the problems of East Anglia's rural shire counties.
Even when I was a county councillor, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) occupied the hot seat at the Department of the Environment, I was assured that everything would work out eventually. We are hearing the same story from the Government Front Bench today. I look forward to the fresh new approach that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will undoubtedly bring to her Department, and to receiving from her the reassurance I have received before—but I hope that, this time, it will mean something.
The fact that individual authorities' block grant entitlement is no longer linked to expenditure, and that therefore, like every other authority, Norfolk will not lose £1 for every £1 it spends above the Government's figure, is welcome. However, the spending assumptions underlying this year's RSG are inadequate, and give rise to unrealistic expectations about rate increases. It is one thing to appear to penalise low-spending authorities, but it is another to keep ramming down their throats that if they do not keep their rate rises down to an average of 2 per cent., and certainly below 5 per cent., they are in some way guilty of mismanagement and of failing to adopt proper measures, such as competitive tendering.
As loyal Tories, we can put up with some of the Department of the Environment's current aberrations under my right hon. Friends, but when we are told, having been offered an inadequate rate support grant, that we should keep our rates down to an average of 2 per cent., that is really galling, and I can tell my right hon. and hon. Friends that it goes down very badly.
Nationally, total local government expenditure provision of £27,669 million is only 3·2 per cent. above local authority budgets for 1988–89. My right hon. Friend wrote to Norfolk county council on 9 January, and I know that he has written to others in a similar vein. In his letter he comments:
"I know Norfolk has a good record as a low spending authority, and I am sure ratepayers appreciate their rates being held down. If Norfolk spends in line with the settlement provision the county precept need rise by no more than about 5 per cent."
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) pointed out that the Government's figure does not take into account various other matters. I refer, for example, to the settlement for council manual workers of about 5 or 6 per
532
cent. The hon. Member for Truro pointed out also that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science intimated to the teachers' pay advisory committee that it ought to work to a figure of 5·1 per cent. Teachers' salaries represent a significant proportion of county council expenditure. There is also an argument about what inflation will prove to be.
When my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government wrote to Norfolk county council saying it should not need to increase rates by more than 5 per cent., he failed to take account of one further factor. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will be familiar with the case of Cakebread v. Severn-Trent water authority which, on appeal, changed the rating of sewage works. That affected many local authorities, and its impact on Norfolk county council was to add £2 million to this year's budget—a 1 per cent. increase in the precept without any changes being made in the level of service. My right hon. Friend totally ignores such considerations when he says that average rate increases should not exceed 5 per cent. in Norfolk.
If Norfolk county council is to observe a 5 per cent. limit, it will have to cut back on services. When I was its deputy leader, my colleagues and I were widely and, on reflection, perhaps justifiably, criticised for being parsimonious. That may be why the SDP made such advances in the elections four years ago—which, despite the rate support grant settlement, we shall soon reverse.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I shall not dispute with the hon. Gentleman the election's outcome, because the electorate will decide that in May. However, I agree with him about the difficulties encountered by councils that have been sensible and low spending over a long period. I raised with the Minister the question of Cornwall's education spending, which was held down because that is what Cornwall was told to do. However, now that Cornwall needs to invest in capital and other expenditure, it is not permitted to do so, and is attacked for increasing rates to cover the extra costs.
Mr. Carttiss: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Norfolk county council, with a precept for 1988–89 of 190·9 pence, is the lowest rated authority in England, other than Hereford and Worcestershire. We heard earlier that Derbyshire's precept is 297·5p. Only one other English county has a precept lower than Norfolk's figure of 190·9p, yet my right hon. Friend, in writing to Norfolk county council, tells it to keep its rate rise to below 5 per cent. That just is not realistic.
Grant entitlements are no longer linked to expenditure and that is welcomed, but we now have the famous "relevant spending" figure. The Government have said what they think a county council's relevant expenditure should be, and the figure for Norfolk is £300 million—£34 million below the old grant-related expenditure.
I wish to make two general points, applicable to all local government, about an issue mentioned by the hon. Member for Leeds, West with particular reference to Leeds. Instead of reducing relevant expenditure by the cost of advanced further education, which has now been transferred from local government expenditure, the Secretary of State has reduced the block grant by the gross cost.
That has two major implications. First, overall rate poundages will be unaffected by the transfer; ratepayers,

533
however, will still, in effect, be funding AFE, despite having no responsibility for that expenditure. So much for local accountability, by which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set such store, particularly when arguing for the community charge as a replacement for the rating system. Local authority associations have rightly argued that ratepayers should see the financial benefits of the transfer of services away from local authority responsibility.
The second implication of the transfer of AFE is this. Some education authorities receive no block grant at all. I am open to correction, but 1 believe that—besides ILEA—that is true of Hertfordshire, Oxfordshire and Surrey, the county of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. That means that, to extract from local government generally the full cost of AFE, £91 million must be taken from local education authorities that receive block grant—which again hits Norfolk.
There has been a further 1 per cent. fall in the county council's share of grant while, ironically, they are contributing £166 million towards safety nets to limit the loss of grant to others. That figure represents 4·7p of Norfolk county council's precept. Again, the proportion of rate support grant taken up by specific and supplementary grants has increased. Not only do such grants, based solely on expenditure, disadvantage prudent authorities, but as they reduce the amount of block grant available for distribution, authorities' choice of priorities is further restricted.
There are four new grants for 1989–90. Specific and supplementary grants now represent 29·4 per cent. of the total Government RSG, compared with 25·9 per cent. of the total in 1988–89. In 1981–82 the proportion of RSG covered by specific and supplementary grant was 13·3 per cent.
The burden of my complaint on behalf of Norfolk ratepayers is that—as has already been recognised many times—the system is not only capricious, but positively works against prudent authorities such as Eastleigh which just happen to be under Conservative control. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton pointed out that Opposition Members were not seething: that is because they have not done too badly out of the system.
Of course my right hon. Friend is quite impartial about whom he penalises. Perhaps one of the worst-hit authorities in Norfolk is represented by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. South Norfolk district council has suffered far more than any other Norfolk authority. I mention that not on behalf of my right hon. Friend or the constituents whom he has represented so effectively and efficiently for so many years, but to illustrate the way in which low-spending authorities are penalised by the system. The neighbouring authority—high-spending, overwhelmingly Socialist-controlled Norwich city council—benefits, but South Norfolk district council's grant has gone down by £134,000, or 13·5 per cent. In other Norfolk districts the RSG has produced results ranging from gains of nearly 16 per cent. to losses of about 7·5 per cent.
In the period from 1985–86 to 1989–90, Norwich's RSG gain has been some 18 per cent.; South Norfolk's loss in the same period has been some 30 per cent. Broadland, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder)—Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—has
534
had a cut: it will receive £993,000 in grant this year, and my hon. Friends have both expressed concern about that. As the two constituencies were once part of the Great Yarmouth constituency, I too know something about them.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government told the Broadland authority that, although its settlement was not as good as it might have been—he acknowledged that it was disappointing—
"The 1989–90 settlement concentrates on provision for key services such as police. This benefits counties rather than districts."
Let us hope that Norfolk county council's request for 50 extra policemen will receive a better reception at the Home Office than it has received before, given that—apart from the Thames Valley—it has the lowest number of police officers per thousand members of the population.
The Minister went on:
"In addition, there have been substantial increases in local authorities' assessed need to spend. Grant is distributed on the basis of common principles and this change benefits areas with higher assessed needs, such as Norwich, to a greater extent than those with lower needs."
That is fair enough. My right hon. Friend the Minister believes that the settlement does not deliberately favour high-spending authorities. He says that block grant is distributed on the basis of needs, and high-spending authorities may nevertheless have high needs. I recognise the validity of his point. However, low-spending, rural shire counties also have needs.
The notion that only those who live in major urban conurbations have needs that the Government must recognise and that there is no such thing as rural deprivation can be believed only in Whitehall. It takes a long time to get through to Whitehall. I am surprised that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government has not recognised that. Although he represents a fairly wealthy part of Suffolk, he must know that some rural areas have different needs but still demand Government and local authority attention. Although higher-spending authorities, which often turn out to be Labour-controlled, have higher needs that the Government rightly recognise, those needs should not be met at the expense of lower-spending rural authorities.
I have raised matters referring to a number of districts with which I am not directly involved to illustrate the continued unfair application of the system and to strike the note that I remain to be convinced that next year 1 shall be able to make a different speech from the one I have just made.
Finally, in my constituency of Great Yarmouth, the Conservative party kept the borough council rate at the same level for five years. The reward for the effective management of local affairs by the Conservatives was that in 1987–88 the rate support grant for the current year was cut by 12·13 per cent. I do not expect my right hon. Friend to defend the fact that in 1987–88 a Conservative administration received a cut of 12·13 per cent. Not surprisingly, last May the Conservatives lost control of the council. This year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in the 1989–90 settlement, rewarded them with a 16 per cent. increase in rate support grant. I am grateful to the Government for finally recognising the needs of Great Yarmouth to the extent of increasing the RSG from last year's figure of £2,635 million to £3,059 million for 1989–90. As it has taken a local election and a change of control to bring about that result, I wonder what message

535
my right hon. Friend wants to give the constituents whom I represent. If we win back control in a year's time, will there be a cut in our rate support grant?
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for increasing the borough council RSG this year, regardless of what party is in power, because it helps the ratepayers. Unfortunately, although the borough rate is 25p in the pound, the county rate is 190p in the pound. The second lowest-spending county council needs greater support within the RSG settlement than my right hon. Friend has been able to deliver.
6.56 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) in which he defended his local authority. I was glad to hear a Conservative Member defending a local authority that is not controlled by his own party. I only wish that a few other Conservative Members were as ready to defend their Labour-controlled local authorities as the hon. Gentleman has just done. I have heard the hon. Gentleman speak on this subject before. Once again he has underlined the lunacies of Government policy on local authority finance.
Before I talk about the rate support grant settlement as it affects London boroughs, I must say something directly to the Minister. Frankly, I much regretted his personal attack on an elected Lambeth councillor concerning rent arrears. I do not know who that councillor is, and I do not particularly wish to hear the details. The attack was snide and vulgar and it was not fitting for a Minister of the Crown to make such an attack from the Dispatch Box. It is difficult enough being an elected local councillor these days whichever party one represents, but to have one's personal affairs dragged through the House of Commons serves no purpose whatsoever other than to lower the Minister in the eyes of the House, and certainly in the opinion of the Opposition. We could have mentioned the names of Conservative councillors who, for various reasons, have got themselves into difficulties over loans, rate arrears with their local authorities or far more serious matters involving criminal proceedings. However, we consider ourselves to be honourable, and although we could join in that particular dirty little battle, we do not intend to do so. If the Minister wants to call my bluff with regard to names, I shall be happy to speak to him outside and tell him precisely to whom I am referring. It ill behoves Ministers to question the financial probity of other elected representatives. That is a dangerous game which could involve hon. Members.
Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is perfectly justified and right to condemn any personal attack. I repeat that I sought to suggest that it is important for all local councillors to be concerned with collecting rents. When there are very large rent arrears in a number of London boroughs but there are no large rent arrears in many Labour-controlled councils elsewhere, it seems reasonable to ask why the Opposition were not prepared to support my call for leadership by local councillors in making sure that they did not have rent arrears. I noted that the Opposition refused to say that they were opposed to that situation, but I was happy wholly to condemn any improper behaviour of the sort that the hon. Gentleman
536
outlined. That is the difference between the two sides of the House. I condemn such behaviour by either side, but the Opposition refuse to do that.
Mr. Banks: I do not accept that. In principle, of course we agree with the Minister, but the Minister did not leave the matter in general terms. The Minister was very particular. He all but named a councillor. It would not take a great deal of sleuthing around to work out to whom the Minister was referring. He mentioned the position that that councillor held and the particular local authority. The Minister mentioned a particular case. We cannot go along with personal attacks of that nature, although in broad terms of course we agree that councillors should take the lead and ensure that their own positions are beyond reproach. That should also be true for hon. Members, although we know that some hon. Members fall rather short of those standards. It is wrong to use individual cases.
I do not know the personal circumstances of the councillor to whom the Minister referred, nor I suspect does the Minister. It is quite wrong for one to drag an individual's personal affairs through this place unless one possesses the facts, which I do not, and I am damned sure that the Minister does not either. That is why we object so strongly to the Minister's approach.
As chairman of the London group of Labour Members, I have pushed my local authority, the London borough of Newham, in an endeavour to make sure that it does something about the level of rent arrears. We are as enthusiastic to make sure that the affairs of Labour local authorities are well run as the Minister wants us to be. Indeed, we may be more enthusiastic because we do not want the Minister to have at his disposal cheap debating points on occasions such as this.
The problems of inner London boroughs are like those of no other borough in this country. This is the capital city. That makes it different, and the amount of population turnover is a factor which only hon. Members who represent London constituencies can fully appreciate.
London local authorities achieved in the last financial year a welcome reduction in rent arrears. The Minister knows that and he has acknowledged the fact. But all that work was undone at a stroke when the Government changed the regime on housing benefit. By cutting £650 million from housing benefit, about one million people were taken out of the system. It is not surprising now that the most recent survey by the Association of Municipal Authorities showed that the average increase in rent arrears in council properties had gone up by 37·5 per cent. since April. That is the direct responsibility of the Government because of the change in the housing benefit regime and the requirement that everyone shall pay 20 per cent. of the rate.
We are talking about some of the poorest people in Britain. It is not surprising that the incidence of rent arrears within that population is high, and a little more understanding on the part of Conservative Members and a little less willingness to jump in with two boots would be greatly appreciated on that score.
I come to the rate support grant settlement for 1989–90 as we see it affecting Labour local authorities in London. We believe that the RSG settlement shows that the Government have failed to recognise the pressing demands

537
facing local authorities in the capital city and the financial constraints and difficulties that they face, some of which I have mentioned.
The Government's apparent objective of stability in the settlement must be constrasted with the increasingly difficult task confonting London local authorities to provide a satisfactory level of service to some of the most deprived communities in the country. I remind the House that the three most deprived local authority areas in England and Wales happen to be the three East End boroughs of Hackney, Newham and Tower Hamlets.
The Association of London Authorities recognises that the settlement is the result of the Government's desire to close down the present discredited rate support grant system. But responsibility for the unfairness and inadequacies of the system must be laid directly at the door of the Government. Through constant change in the basic rules of the system, the use of grant-related expenditure assessments as prescriptive spending levels rather than as a means to distribute grant, spending targets and rate-capping to control in detail local expenditure decisions, and the withdrawal of huge sums of grant, the Government have attempted to thwart the aspirations of democratically elected local councils to provide good quality, responsive services for the communities they serve.
The settlement fails to take any serious account of the particular difficulties facing many local authorities in London. These include, first, the economic and social problems in inner-city areas resulting from deprivation and poverty; secondly, an infrastructure requiring immense sums for rehabilitation and renewal; thirdly, the difficulties of coping with the consequences of legislation such as poll tax implementation, the transfer of education in inner London, privatisation, housing changes and care in the community; fourthly, the difficulties of recruiting and retaining staff; and, fifthly, the inadequate resources of local authorities following cuts in grant and the use of rate-capping.
The 1989–90 settlement is based on current expenditure by local authorities of £29·14 billion. The Association of London Authorities believes that this level of provision is completely inadequate. Although it sounds, and is, a great deal of money, the Government have claimed—I heard the Minister say it—that it represents an increase of 4·8 per cent. on 1988–89 budgets. But the increase allowed is well below the level of inflation in the economy as a whole and the likely rise in local authority costs.
The best indication of the level of spending required in 1988–90 to maintain services comes from the expenditure working groups, which are composed of civil servants and local authority officials. They suggest that expenditure of about £30·2 billion is necessary, though it should be noted that these estimates were based on inflation forecasts calculated in March 1988.
The expenditure provision in the consultation paper implies cuts of 3·5 per cent. compared with the assessment of the expenditure groups. So the basis of the proposed settlement rests on flawed foundations. Again, those local authorities which are not the subject of rate-capping will face difficult choices between rate increases above inflation or cuts in essential local services.
The level of grant for 1989–90 is also completely inadequate. Although no doubt the Government will present the settlement as resulting in an increase in grant in excess of £1 billion, this is due not to any generosity on
538
the part of the Government but to the decision to close down the rate support grant system, which means an end to grant holdback.
The proposed level of grant represents yet a further cut in the proportion of local spending met by grant—from 46·2 per cent. in the 1988–89 settlement to 43·3 per cent. in this settlement. If the grant proportion had remained at the 1988–89 settlement level, the grant total would be about £897 million higher than the Government propose. Comparisons with the levels of grant which applied in 1978–79 show that the shortfall in 1989–90 will be in excess of £5 billion and that the cumulative shortfall is over £28 billion.
If one wants a reason for the increases in rates that led us to rate-capping, one need only consider the amount of clawback that the Government have imposed on rate support rant settlements. That is the key. One does not have to be a philosopher or even understand the nuts and bolts of local authority finance to realise that. If the Government keep taking money away from local government, that imposes more burdens on local ratepayers if the elected local authority wants to sustain, let alone enhance, the level of services to the local community.
That is where the crisis in local government originated. That crisis was engineered by the Government and, as is often the case, they engineer a crisis and later say that they have the solution—and the solution is to impose draconian financial measures on elected local authorities. That is why we are so annoyed, angry, distrustful and disturbed about the way in which the Government still attack and approach local authorities—as though they were the enemies within. It is about time that the House, including Conservative Members—and there are a few of them—stood up and defended the system of elected local authorities in Britain, instead of continually denigrating authorities and treating them as though they were aliens from outer space with no part to play in the democratic system.
A major concern to the ALA and London local authorities is the Government's decision to continue with rate-capping in 1989–90. Again, London authorities will bear the brunt of rate limitation. Of the eight authorities designated for rate limitation next year, all but one are in London. They are Camden, Greenwich, Hackney, Lewisham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and the Inner London education authority. The concentration of rate limitation on London authorities is a consequence of the inadequacies of grant-related expenditure assessments for London authorities and a continuing failure by the Government to realise the unique problems of the capital city and of the local authorities in that city.
The Minister must recognise that. I appreciate that he is new to the job. Unfortunately, the Government are continually changing the faces of Department of the Environment Ministers at the Dispatch Box. That enables them and Conservative Members generally to continue to blame somebody else, as did the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth. They say, "I appreciate that this is not the responsibility of the new Minister, because it was begun by the Minister who went before."
The Government keep changing them round. They are like ducks at the fairground. We stand there and they keep coming round and no matter how much we pop them down, more keep popping up. They keep changing the names and trying to transfer the blame, but this is a

539
collective decision and the present Minister is as responsible for the policies that he has inherited as he will be for the mistakes that he will undoubtedly make.
Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to pop up; no doubt he will attempt to shoot me down. I was previously the hon. Member for Lewisham, West and had considerable respect for the idea that he is advancing. Do features of London authorities give credence to what the hon. Gentleman says? Until I considered the matter carefully I did not understand that the problem with most London authorities is that they are unbelieveably more incompetent than most authorities elsewhere. They must become more competent before the hon. Gentleman's suggestion can be taken more seriously. I beg him to try to encourage his friends to run their affairs more sensibly so that those of us who are on their side can find more money for them. Unless the hon. Gentleman is able to do that, more money will not be given to people who cannot run their show properly.
Mr. Banks: The Minister has missed the point about the unique problems of London. I should like to know how close his association with Lewisham has been over the years. One needs to understand the problems of London, which have become worse. The Government's social and economic problems have exacerbated the problems of inner-city areas. The problems of unemployment, social deprivation and others are concentrated in London as in no other area.
I assure the Minister that Labour Members are devoted to the idea of efficient local government—especially efficient Labour-controlled local government. I say to my colleagues who run London authorities that unless we can show that a Socialist-controlled authority is better at running the affairs of the local community we cannot expect people to vote for us; they will vote for the Tory party. I therefore do not need any lessons or encouragement from the Minister. He must accept that we are doing our best, given the scale of the problems.
Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is right, but the matter must be put into perspective. The Minister and his hon. Friends were making great play of Ealing council. I have done some checking and discovered that Ealing's rates are lower than some Conservative-controlled authorities, including Harrow, Enfield and Barnet. Perhaps the Government should look more carefully at their own efficiency.
Mr. Gummer: That is because of rate-capping.
Mr. Soley: No, it is not because of rate-capping.
Mr. Banks: We must also consider the level and quality of services being provided. Conservative Members are too willing to accept that efficiency equals running down services to the point where, as a charge on revenue, they almost disappear. One must try to balance the optimum level of efficiency of services with a charge acceptable to ratepayers. To demand high rates for the sake of it is ridiculous, but to say that rates have no relationship to the level of services for which they are supposed to pay misses the central argument. The task of local authorities is to provide efficient services for their communities, compatible with a reasonable charge for rates.
540
The level of rates is largely determined by Government policy. If the Government keep removing rate support grant—they have taken a cumulative £28 billion of rate support grant from local authorities—it is not surprising that in trying to defend and enhance services, Labour-controlled and some Conservative-controlled local authorities have increased rates. We should speak of not only rate levels but the efficiency of services.
Mr. Gummer: This is an important argument, and it is a matter about which the hon. Gentleman and I care very much. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) said that, although I have significantly increased Ealing council's grant, it wants to increase its rates more than independent people suggest is necessary. I wax loud about Brent because it is so inefficient and because the people who most need its help suffer. We should be concerned about that problem, which is why I want the hon. Gentleman to persuade Brent to be competent. When it is, it will deserve help from all of us.
Mr. Banks: The Minister will receive as much assistance from me as he requires to make local government in London as efficient as possible. I expect him to give sympathetic consideration to the problems of boroughs such as Brent and Lambeth. The racial mix in those boroughs is different from that in the majority of Conservative Members' constituencies. Until the Government understand that, they will not begin to understand the problems of Brent and Lambeth.
I give the Minister an open invitation. I will go with him to Brent and we will sit down with its officers, elected councillors and Labour party local government spokesmen—[Interruption] I am happy to go with my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). We shall try to forge a partnership that recognises the problems of Brent and, so far as is possible, the constraints of Government policy to see how we can make progress. We have constantly said that we are prepared to sit down even with the devil—the Secretary of State for the Environment—provided that he will approach the problems of local authorities in London constructively and in a conciliatory fashion and not attack them, as the Minister did in his speech. Conservative Members attack local authorities in London as though they were put there by an alien civilisation. We object to that and it is the reason for much confrontation in local government in London.
There have been many Environment Ministers, but we at the London borough of Newham have always asked whether they would like to come and see how our borough operates. We should be delighted to see the Minister, and we shall listen to him provided he listens to us. That is the prescription for progress in local government.
7.17 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I thought that he was on shaky ground because in one part of his speech he was obviously reading verbatim from a prepared text. Had it not been for interventions, his speech would have been much shorter. He is usually one of the wittier speakers, but the prize for that in this debate should go to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price).

541
When debating rates and rate support levels, the argument tends to be polarised on London boroughs, as though everything happens there and there are no bad councils outside London. I can give numerous stories about percentage increases. One of the funniest letters that I received last year was from a parish councillor who demanded that I call on the Secretary of State to rate-cap the parish council because it was about to increase its rate by 100 per cent. I thought that that was a slight exaggeration. The council intended to increase its rates from 1 p to 2p, so I decided not to take the matter any further.
I wish to speak of the Derbyshire Dales district council—which covers the area that I represent—and Derbyshire county council. Last year, the district council and I made representations to my right hon. Friend the Minister about the settlement for Derbyshire Dales district council—and I did so again this year. I am glad to see that in the revised figures we have come off slightly better and that the points made by myself and the district council were eventually taken up by the Minister. We must remember that of the total rate levied in a county the district council levies only a small amount. In Derbyshire, over the past year, the amount has been getting smaller. In 1981–82, the district rate was 11 per cent. of the total rate bill. This year it is 8 per cent. One reason for that is the way in which the county council rate has increased so drastically.
The same is true in another part of my constituency—Amber Valley—which, for the first time, has a Conservative-controlled council. We enjoyed exceptionally good results in this year's local elections in Derbyshire. We won control of Derby city council for the first time in about eight years and we won Amber Valley district council for the first time. That augurs well for the future. I wish to talk about the record of rate rises since the Labour party took control of Derbyshire county council. We should draw some conclusions from this interesting set of figures.
Labour's first rate rise was in 1982–83, with an increase of 25·2 per cent. In 1983–84 it increased the rate by 12·2 per cent. and in 1984·85 it increased by 13·1 per cent. However, in 1985–86 it increased the rate by just 4·8 per cent. Only the most cynical would say that that had anything to do with the fact that the council was standing for election that year. I should not be so cynical as that.
In 1986–87, after the election, the council got back on track and increased the rate by the largest amount ever—25·9 per cent. It increased the rate by 48p to make up for the previous year. In 1987–88 it increased the rate by 12·4 per cent. Last year it increased the rate by 13·5 per cent., which does not sound too bad in the context of Labour authorities. It is not bad if it is 13·5 per cent. of 5p or 6p. However, 13·5 per cent. of 262p means a rate increase for my constituents and all those in Derbyshire of 35·5p in the pound.
Mr. Soley: I wish to help the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) with his argument. During the period of Conservative control in his local authority there was an increase in the rate of 168 per cent. However—this is the interesting point—expenditure rose by only 78 per cent. Does not the hon. Gentleman want to take the Minister to task? His local authority increased expenditure by only 78 per cent. over seven or eight years of both Labour and Conservative control. Yet suddenly he is whacked with this enormous 168 per cent. Increase—
542
most of which came from Conservative, not Labour councils—because of his Minister's rate support grant
distribution.
Mr. McLoughlin: I am interested in what the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has to say. I am surprised that he has come armed with facts about Derbyshire county council. Perhaps he feels vulnerable. I shall deal with the point that he raised.
Since the Labour party has controlled the council—it set its first budget in 1982—we have seen an increase of 186·5p in the rate, that is, 168 per cent. Derbyshire county council is now the highest-rated county in the country, in figures only. Not many people who live in Derbyshire consider the council to be number one. It is important to put that into context. Why have Derbyshire's rates increased by so much? We should look at neighbouring local authorities. I know a little about Staffordshire because I served for some time on Staffordshire county council. The Conservatives on Staffordshire county council want to make a few changes when they win the election in May. In 1981 Staffordshire and Derbyshire were controlled by the Conservatives. Staffordshire has a population of just over 1 million and an area of 271,000 hectares. Derbyshire has a population of 916,000 and an area of 263,000 hectares. They both have cities—Derby and Stoke-on-Trent—so they make good comparisons. They also appear together in the Audit Commission cluster.
In 1981–82 Derbyshire county council's rate was 111p and Staffordshire county council's rate was 112·5p. Staffordshire county council's rate today is 215p, yet Derbyshire county council's rate is a staggering 297p.
Mr. Soley rose—
Mr. McLoughlin: I must get on because there is much that I want to say. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make further points later.
One of the difficulties of the present system is that it is difficult to explain to people how the figures reflect the money in their pocket. For the average house in Derbyshire with a rateable value of £150 the rates I would be £446·25. In Staffordshire the rates for a similar house would be £325·50-a difference of £120·75. A house with a rateable value of £200 would have to pay rates of £595 in Derbyshire and £430 in Staffordshire—a difference of £160 or £3 a week. I am a little fed up with the Labour party telling me about the poor, the neglected and those who cannot cope when it continues to support local authorities which levy high rates and have high spending.
Mr. Bernie Grant rose—
Mr. McLoughlin: I must make some progress.
In 1981–82 Derbyshire was 30th out of 39 shire counties in its rate level. Today it is first. It levies the highest rates in the country.
Mr. Grant: Does the hon. Gentleman know the amount of rate support grant withheld from Derbyshire and Staffordshire by the Government? We want to get the figures right.
Mr. McLoughlin: Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister will help on that. The Labour party might complain about the way in which local authorities have been treated, but they have all been treated in the same way. If that is not so, perhaps my right hon. Friend the

543
Minister will tell me whether a special Act of Parliament has been rushed through without anyone knowing about it. It would probably he called the Rate Support Grant (Derbyshire) Act, but I do not know of such an Act. I have checked with the Library and I understand that Derbyshire county council has been treated in the same way as every other county council in the country. If the hon. Member for Hammersmith is saying that it has been treated unfairly, the same must apply to every other county council.
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is making perfectly reasonable comparisons. He is doing precisely what he has been asked to do. He is being polite about some of the marginally better Labour councils and comparing them with his council, which is one of the worst. He has the disadvantage of seeing all that is bad about Labour councils within his own council. It ill behoves the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) to interrupt my hon. Friend when he is merely comparing Derbyshire with other councils, all of which have been subject to the same system. The difficulty with the present system is that the Government cannot say, "We will do a little better with that council because it is a good council". One cannot make such distinctions. Mr. Bookbinder in Derbyshire runs a thoroughly bad council.
Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Bernie Grant rose—
Mr. McLoughlin: I have given way enough. The hon. Gentleman has not been in the debate for long.
My right hon. Friend referred in his opening speech to a survey that the county council carried out about libraries. I wanted to look at the county council's record on the library service, so I turned to the public library statistics in the County Councils Gazette, which was published last October. It provided several interesting facts. In Derbyshire, it was estimated that there were 1,769,371 books on 1 April 1988. It cost £8,647 per 1,000 people in Derbyshire to administer that service. Staffordshire county council has 2,743,906 books, yet it cost £6,413 per 1,000 people to administer the service. In other words, it cost £2,000 more to administer 30 per cent. fewer books. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West talked about efficiency in local authorities and said that he wanted to see efficiency. Is it efficient that it costs £2,000 more per 1,000 of population to administer 30 per cent. fewer books? That kind of efficiency is lost on me and on my hon. Friends.
Mr. Pat Wall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McLoughlin: No, I will not give way. I took my figures, as I have said, from the County Councils Gazette in 1988.
I wish to make another comparison. On 7 November, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answered a question about the number of people employed by county councils. In 1979, Derbyshire employed 35,835 people. In 1988, it employed 44,145 people—an increase of 8,310, so that the hon. Member for Hammersmith can get it right. Why has Derbyshire had the highest increase in staff in the country? I shall be fair
544
and take the example of Durham. Are all Labour councils like Derbyshire county council or have we a special council? I would not mind if Labour Members said that Derbyshire was a one-off. However, in Durham 24,807 people were employed in 1977; in 1988, the figure was 23,927. That shows that even Labour-controlled councils can reduce their staff. I must give them the credit that some of them reduce their staff—unless one happens to be in Derbyshire.
Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McLoughlin: No, I will not.
I should have thought that I had given an ideal opportunity for a Labour Front Bench spokesman to say that Derbyshire is a bit special and not wholeheartedly supported by the Labour party, but I suppose that that would be difficult. I live in Matlock, in my constituency, and in my local press last week there was an article about a letter from the Leader of the Opposition. He sent greetings and messages to Derbyshire and, in a letter to council leader David Bookbinder, he praised the authority's performance. Councillor Bookbinder went on to say:
"We believe this County Council enjoys an enviable reputation—efficiency has never been greater and our service delivery has never been more effective. We are committed to provide a wide range of quality services to those who need them most and it's nice to know our efforts have been recognised in Westminster."
I do not know about recognising their efforts and I am not sure that there was not an ulterior motive in the right hon. Gentleman's comments.
Derbyshire county council has a bit of a reputation for looking after failed Labour Members of Parliament. I have read recently about the Leader of the Opposition's lunch with John Mortimer. One may read shortly that the right hon. Gentleman is looking for a job. He could look in Derbyshire and perhaps that is why he wrote the letter. It may have been a soft soap insurance policy for the future. At the beginning of last year, Derbyshire county council employed a certain Reg Race, whose only qualification was that he had once been a Labour Member of Parliament and a publicity officer for the National Union of Public Employees. He was appointed not as a publicity officer, but as a chief executive or county clerk of the county council at a salary of about £46,000.
Mr. Tony Banks: I must tell the hon. Gentleman to have a care. Reg Race worked for me when I was chair of the Greater London council. I would not tolerate an inefficient local authority officer working for me. Derbyshire county council had a good bargain in Reg Race and it was foolish to get rid of him.
Mr. McLoughlin: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point and I might even believe what he said. Perhaps he wants efficient local authorities and that is why he employed Mr. Race. I do not know what the qualifications of Mr. Race are, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman for Newham, North-West could tell me why Derbyshire county council sacked Mr. Race after nine months. Was it because he was being too efficient? Was it because he was doing what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West wanted? I have no idea, but I also have no idea how much it cost for that nine months' youth training programme to get under way and how much it cost the ratepayers of Derbyshire to get rid of Mr. Race. I do not

545
know how much subsistence and travel to Derbyshire cost or how much it cost for his travel away from Derbyshire. That information has been singularly lacking from the county council. A mist of secrecy has built up around the whole scenario. Mr. Race came out of a puff of smoke and went in a puff of smoke. He was appointed on 23 December 1987 to take up an appointment on 1 January 1988. I said at the time that that was indecent haste and I was criticised for that. It is fairly quick for somebody to take up such a post in four days. I would not say again that it was indecent haste, but flaming well quick and there are several questions to be answered.
I know that a large number of hon. Members want to speak in the debate, so I shall not go through all the other reasons why we have high rates. However, I shall go through some of the county council's other actions. The council supports nuclear-free zones. That is fair enough and a number of Labour councils do that. But I object—and find it most repugnant—that school notepayer is taken back from schools to the county council to be overprinted with the words:
"Derbyshire supports Nuclear Free Zones."
I know that the parents find it repugnant as well.
The county council recently gave student miners £1,500 for a jaunt to the European Parliament and the European Bank in Luxembourg. It also held a conference to look into the needs of black women, which cost £1,000. Under the libraries' multicultural fund, the council at present spends £50,000 per year on mother tongue printed material and English language books.
Mr. Soley: What is wrong with that?
Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman asks whether that is all.
Mr. Soley: No. I asked what was wrong with that.
Mr. McLoughlin: Derbyshire county council approved the spending of £50,000 in July 1988 for a civil rights campaign organised by that famous organisation, the National Council for Civil Liberties. It spends money on political opinion polls and incurred expenses of £3,000 on a readership survey for Insight, the county council's magazine. Last year, the council staged its own May day celebrations at a cost of £5,000 and also gave £500 to help the Trades Union Congress to organise a May day event. It set aside £15,000 for a May day event in the American adventure theme park. The chairman of the county council's public protection committee attended a week-long conference in Athens entitled the "Acropolis Appeal for Peace and Life and Civilisation" and described as
"A conference of mayors and delegates from nuclear-free cities and zones."
The councillor's travelling expenses, costs and attendance allowance were all paid.
Then there is the competitive tendering panel. Derbyshire county council set up a special panel to combat the effects of competitive tendering, which in June 1988 voted itself an initial budget of £300,000 to be spent in recruiting staff who specialise in tendering. I can tell the House about the effects of competitive tendering—they are awful. Amber Valley district council has done a wicked thing in Derbyshire—it has saved ratepayers £2 million by competitive tendering. No wonder the county council wants to spend money on the panel.
546
Derbyshire county council proposes to expand its equal opportunities and race relations department. Prior to that expansion, the department had a staff of 32 and cost £500,000 per year to run. Hon. Members may ask, "What is wrong with equal opportunities?" I do not mind people talking about equal opportunities, but I wish that they would act on what they say. Why is there not one woman committee chairman on Derbyshire county council? It seems that Derbyshire is happy to tell people how to behave but not to follow its own advice. What about the race relations department? I have not been monitoring closely the Labour candidates for the forthcoming county council elections, but I have not heard that any Labour candidate from the ethnic minorities is standing in Chesterfield, Bolsover, High Peak or West Derbyshire. The county council asks everybody else in the county to do a good job while setting a pathetic example itself.
Hon. Members may yawn, but I can tell them that my constituents yawn when they get their rate bills. Under the present system, ratepayers cannot see what council spending means to them. The sooner they can see that more easily, the better. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government on his enviable position as the last Minister to introduce a settlement under the present rate support system. Next year we shall have a far better system which will allow representation throughout the county and under which people will pay for the services that they desire. I hope that we in Derbyshire do not have to tolerate the present level of rates for much longer and I hope that we soon have a change in the county council. We shall then show that it is quite possible to reduce the rates while still providing the services that people in the county want.
7.43 pm
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Last year I spent many long hours in the Standing Committee on the Education Reform Bill with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin). Thankfully he was then playing what I suspect many would regard as his proper role. He was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of State and therefore kept silent for the 200 hours. His speech tonight was predictable. I suspect that it is the speech that he has trailed up and down the valleys of Derbyshire in search of a reference in some local newspaper. Sadly, he gave the game away and told us a lot about himself and about the values of the Conservative party. One of the items of expenditure that he criticised was the translation of textbooks into mother tongues. In criticising that, he showed that he had no concern to extend opportunities in education or to improve standards and give passports to life to all our children. His comment told us the truth about the Conservative party.
There is a fundamental characteristic of all our debates on these matters. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West told us that the system works in the same way for every local authority. It simply does not. That is why the hon. Members for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) and for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) have spoken on behalf of their constituents, saying that the system does not work and that they face an injustice. If the system worked in the same way for every authority, the hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West would not have made those speeches.
Mr. McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fatchett: No. The hon. Gentleman made a long speech. That inconsistency is characteristic of the system and the way in which it is worked and I hope that those Conservative Members who have raised their voices against the injustices of the system will join Labour Members in the Lobby.
Another characteristic that is typical of all our debates is the performance of the SLD. That party's spokesman is not with us at present and I do not criticise him for that, but his speech disappointed me and worried me greatly. His behaviour was typical. He said, "Yes, we are in favour of some things, no, we are against others." The essential political word from the SLD is "maybe". They say, "Maybe we believe it, and maybe we do not". I am amazed that the centre parties could ever find it possible to fall out over a principle, as it is impossible to detect a principle in anything that their members say in this place or elsewhere.
I have a soft spot for the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). On the day when the hon. Gentleman was elected to the House I was in Truro for the "Newsnight" election special and I remember proudly announcing that it was the best by-election result for the Labour party in the 1983–1987 Parliament although admittedly we started from a very low base. During the election special the BBC allowed a phone-in—with all its usual sense of objectivity. The first call was from a Mrs. Rosie Barnes, housewife, of Greenwich. Even I did not believe that the BBC could be quite that inefficient. Then we had the moment of triumph when the newly elected hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) came on screen to talk sweet words to the hon. Member for Truro in front of millions of viewers. I am sure that the House will understand how sad I felt when I discovered some 18 months later that they no longer speak to each other—perhaps not over a principle but over a personality.
The rate support grant settlement is bad news for the ratepayers and residents of Leeds, just as it is bad news for ratepayers everywhere. I base that assertion on one simple criterion. The rate support grant settlement is based on an inflation figure that takes no account of the Chancellor's foolishness and irresponsibility. The Chancellor is pushing up inflation, and as he does so, he pushes up rate bills and cuts services. Ratepayers everywhere will want to know the answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). Will ratepayers have to meet the cost of the foolishness and stupidity of the Chancellor? Will they have to pay more simply because the Department of the Environment has not been able to budget to take account of that? Ratepayers will suffer also, especially in Leeds, because of the nature of the settlement.
Leeds is an authority which could never be criticised for inefficiency or its failure to deliver services. However, that authority—which occasionally has even been praised at the Dispatch Box by Government Ministers—is about to lose in this settlement £7·3 million. What justice is there in that? The Minister will say that part of that loss is due to the nationalisation of Leeds polytechnic. A Tory Government has introduced a measure of nationalisation which will take that institution out of local control. The Minister will know, however, that the loss of Leeds polytechnic does not account for the £7·3 million cut in Leeds' grant. Leeds' record over the years will stand comparison with that of any other authority; yet it is now to be penalised. Leeds' spending has never exceeded Government targets or GRE levels. Leeds' rates are the fifth lowest in the country for a metropolitan district.
548
Leeds' grant percentage, however, has been reduced every year since 1980–81. Leeds has delivered in Government terms, but the Government have reneged on their commitment and promise to the ratepayers and those who want to use the services provided by Leeds city council.
Crucial questions need to be answered by the Minister. For instance, why does Leeds lose nearly £8 million, yet on the same settlement Bradford gains £5 million? I am not criticising that, because I believe money should be spent on the people in Bradford. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) is in the House. I saw recently the results of some of the cruel decisions which have been taken by Bradford Conservative council. It decided to close a unit with a national reputation for special education. That is Conservatism in Bradford. It decided to increase the price of school meals, which means that 9,000 youngsters are missing out on a crucial meal. The Minister may nod and grimace at that thought, but she should talk to those children and to their parents and discover what Conservatism in Bradford is doing to those children.
I do not criticise money going to Bradford, but the Minister must tell me why that money should go to Bradford and Leeds should lose out. In a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), the Minister gave predictions for Leeds' rates. Leeds city council has not been extravagant, inefficient or profligate, but, as a result of this Minister's settlement, the Government are taking money from the ratepayer of Leeds.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West asked what would happen if the city's council's expenditure for 1989–90 was in line with the GRE predictions. The hon. Lady replied that on that basis the rate increase for Leeds would be 12 per cent. The Government have built into their model a prediction of a 12 per cent. rate increase for Leeds. That increase has nothing to do with Leeds' expenditure, because Leeds has expended at the level calculated by the Government. Why, therefore, a rate increase of 12 per cent.? The simple fact is that the Government are punishing the ratepayers of Leeds. The Minister may reply that Leeds city council could cut its expenditure and therefore stop the rates going up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why have GRE?"] If hon. Gentlemen would be quiet for a moment, they might find out something about local government. Leeds has never spent above its GRE levels. Why, therefore, should Leeds cut its services in education, housing and social services? I want services in Leeds for my constituents.
I have heard during the debate that this is the last year of the rate support grant settlement. Over the hill, however, will come a new dawn, a new tomorrow and a new utopia called poll tax. That new utopia will not be heralded in with great enthusiasm in Leeds, because people have studied the figures. The city council has produced its figures. In Leeds, 33 wards make up the metropolitan district. On the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy figures, in 29 of those wards there will be more losers than gainers. In only four wards will there be gainers, and, not surprisingly, those wards are in the richest and most affluent areas of the city. If I break those figures down to individuals in Leeds, the fact is that 75 per cent. will lose out because of the introduction of the poll tax. There will be no new dawn and no new tomorrow. Leeds has been asked to pay this year and will be asked to pay again and again in subsequent years. There will be no

549
justice, no equity and no fairness. I ask the Minister for some justice, some fairness and some hope for the Leeds' ratepayers.
I understand that the Minister has agreed to meet an all-party delegation from Leeds. I wish that some of those Conservative Members who represent the city could have joined in this debate and made their voices heard. They are conspicuous by their absence. When that all-party delegation meets the Minister, we want to be in a position to negotiate. We do not want a closed door. We want to be able to put the case for the city and we want some movement from the Government.
Local government is important. It is important to the balance and the control over power in our society. Too much power has gone to the centre. Much more needs to go back to local people so that local people can make their decisions. We cannot do that until we have a change of Government. We cannot do that until we have a system of local government finance that is efficient and fair. We will get no such system from this Government, because they believe in making the burdens on local government and the tax and rate payers much more difficult and onerous. That is why I shall be voting against this settlement.
7.57 pm
Mr. Iain Mills: I am in some difficulties tonight and, before making a brief contribution, I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to advise the Minister of State that Solihull council and I are most grateful for his reasoned, sympathetic and extremely kind attention to our affairs. He not only saw us separately on 26 October, but also saw a delegation which was present in the House earlier. We understand the difficulties facing him.
In thanking him, however, for his reasonableness and for listening to us, we are still adamant—and absolutely adamantine—in our dissatisfaction with the effect of the rate support grant on Solihull council. This is not a matter of personal criticism of Ministers. I have heard tonight much cheap politicking and the blaming of the Conservative Government. Hon. Members should look carefully at the origins of the redistributive effects within this legislation that allows for the rate support grant.—[Interruption.] If hon. Members care to listen—of course they may not—it goes back to the days of Sir Winston Churchill. They therefore must not make cheap points.
Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mills: No, I shall not give way. I have been asked to be brief, and, quite honestly, other hon. Members have been lengthy. I cannot give way if I am to keep my contribution to 10 minutes.
The redistributive effects go back to the early post-war years.
I am here not to argue with hon. Members but to put the point of view of Solihull council and of my constituents who live in its area. The system has been extremely unfair to those residents. In saying that, I am joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), my constituency neighbour with whom I work closely. I know that he has worked hard behind the scenes in the same direction as I have to try to persuade the Government to alter the system to benefit our constituents. I have received letters from many people in my constituency—from Conservative branches, from my Conservative political
550
centre, from individuals, from councillors and from the council itself. Some of those councillors travelled today at short notice to be here for the debate, and no doubt the exciting arguments heard in the course of it will sustain them in their journey home by InterCity.
It is unlikely that I can support this measure, and not in the sense that I am a disloyal Conservative—I sometimes think that the Prime Minister should be grateful that she shares my views on so many subjects—but on this matter I must show my loyalty to my constituents and to one of the most successful councils in the country. It is not a bad council; nor is it inefficient or lacking in cost-effectiveness. It is the most efficient and the most supportive of the Conservative Government. It was the first to introduce a city technology college, of which we are proud. The council is innovative, successful, and by its very effectiveness has been caught on the sharp point of the redistributive effect of the rate support grant.
The council has kept rate increases down for a couple of years, and houses, factories and commercial developments have been attracted to the area. Partly as a result of that success, the rate base has increased. The system works in such a way that if a council attracts these good developments, it receives less from the Government.
So its very success is bitter aloes to the council. Its efficiency has generated less money and could result in a rate increase for my constituents and for those of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull of 17 per cent., 18 per cent. or 20 per cent.—not because of the council, but because it is one of the few—it is perhaps the only one—metropolitan boroughs to receive less from Government, and in real terms, allowing for inflation, the council has lost more millions.
The council has been the leader in implementing, a number of education policies. Where houses are built, schools must be built too. A new school costs £330,000, not an inconsiderable sum, and it is not allowed for under the rate support grant. The council has been a leader in implementing social service policies to look after disadvantaged people. It was said earlier that Solihull seemed to be a rich borough. I ask hon. Members who may believe that to remember, when travelling up the M6 between Coventry and Birmingham and passing dozens of high-rise flats, that they are part of Chelmsley Wood council housing estate, which is operated by Solihull council. It comprises 18,000 dwellings in which live many socially deprived people, many elderly people and many single parents—nice people who need expenditure to meet their needs. It is a cause of sadness to me and the council that such expenditure is not reflected in the rate support grant.
More bitter aloes are discovered in the fact that, because people are attracted to leave the cities and move out to villages where they build houses, thereby eroding the green belt—I am afraid that the target is about 2,000 more houses in the Solihull green belt—that in turn creates yet more demands on the council. It is extraordinary that Birmingham should have done so well out of the rate support grant, considering that the outflow from Birmingham and from Coventry, which has also done well, has created part of the problem that we must cope with.
Birmingham has gained magnificently—it is rate-capped. I am sure it will thrill Oppposition Members to know that the only council in the west midlands to lose is

551
also the only Conservative-controlled council. To judge from their silence, Opposition Members can apparently understand the passion of my feelings.
In my 10 years in this House I have never voted against a Government measure, but I shall consider doing so this evening. That is sad, but I would not be doing justice to my constituents or to the council that runs their affairs if I did not make a demonstration of the strength of their views.
I have slightly exceeded my time and I conclude by reminding the House that this is not a transient matter. I alone, or with my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, have led delegations to see three Secretaries of State, three Ministers of State and three Under-Secretaries of State. We have always been promised that the system would be changed. It operates to the disadvantage of Solihull.
I see that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government has returned to the Chamber. I thank him again for his kindness in meeting the council. Our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will tell him that I have been extremely critical of the system, but my right hon. Friend the Minister's interest in our affairs has never been lacking.
Will the community charge benefit Solihull? Because of the transitional period, which I opposed, it will add £75 to what will eventually be a much more successful system and a fairer charge for the residents of my constituency and of Solihull. It has long been needed.
Had the present system continued, Solihull would have continued to receive less and less benefit and to suffer higher and higher rates for the worst possible reasons. Let us change the system. If, at the last minute, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State could find it in his budget—because of falling school rolls, or the RSG or anything else—to make the system fairer, my constituents and the residents of Solihull would be grateful.
8.8 pm
Mr. Dennis Turner: We should congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) on his robust defence of his local authority, which faces difficulties because of this measure. Even though he considers that other authorities in the west midlands get a fairer distribution of rate support grant, he may be assured that other local authorities, including my own—Wolverhampton—will at this very moment be making painful cuts in their budgets to reach levels of expenditure and of rate increases that will be acceptable to the people of Wolverhampton. We must not under-estimate the difficult decisions that Birmingham, Walsall and Sandwell will have to make.
There is no point in the Minister coming at this eleventh hour to tell us about the end of the rate support grant formula and that, as an hon. Member said, we are moving into the unknown. The move to the poll tax or community charge—whichever we call it—is the wrong way to go from this iniquitous form of rate support grant that we are debating.
It is the Government's fault that we are in these difficulties. They do not date from 1988 or even from 1983–84. They go back to the advent of this Government. We all remember the changes made in 1979, and we remember successive Secretaries of State tampering with the system of rate support grant. They always reduced the level of rate support and at the same time introduced
552
targets and grant-related expenditure assessments, holdbacks and clawbacks. All of us in local government in the early 1980s remember all the legislation passing through the House. Some Conservative Members know that I am speaking the truth when I say that the kind of legislation that we got year after year has brought us to our present position.
The problems that have been brought upon local government—uncertainties and difficulties in planning—are due to the failure of the Government from the outset to tackle local government and to deal with its finances and the planning that is necessary. Such a process would have achieved better services for the people that local government represents.
Three months ago, in a debate on the rate support grant settlement, we said that three crucial matters needed the Government's attention. One was the provision for current expenditure in 1988–89. We said that the expenditure level set by the Government was substantially lower than that which was likely. At that time, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities estimated that the amount required was about £1 billion. We also said that estimates of inflation were far too optimistic, and that has proved to be correct. We said that, even at that stage, pay awards were running at 3 per cent. above the Government's forecast. We asked for interest rates to be reconsidered because of the impact that they would have on local government expenditure in 1988–89 and 1989–90.
The Government's bold and exciting claim of a £1·1 billion, or 9 per cent., increase for 1989–90 was misleading. We told the Minister that £500 million would be returned to the Treasury because final grant entitlement for 1988–89 and for earlier years was based on estimates rather than on final audited figures. Those matters were raised in the debate three months ago and have not been adequately reflected in this final settlement.
For months the Minister has been trying in a subtle way to send out from the House the message that this rate support grant formula is inadequate, imperfect and complicated. We have known for years that it is totally unacceptable, but now the Government are introducing the poll tax and they try to give the people the feeling that they readily recognise all the imperfections, the rate increases and the problems that authorities such as Solihull have to place on their ratepayers. The Government give the impression that these problems are the result of some mysterious formula with which the Government cannot cope. The Government say, "Let us accept that, put it away and ride into the new dawn with the poll tax."
The people know that the poll tax will be worse and less fair. It is an iniquitous tax, and when the people get the opportunity in the coming council elections they will show the Conservative party and the Government what they think of the poll tax and of the way that the Government have treated local government.
8.16 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I have been in the House since the debate started and I have listened with some fascination to the speeches by Front Bench Members who seem to have achieved an inversion of political mythology. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) made a great virtue of the last Labour

553
Government's attempt to restrain local government spending. They had to, because they had got our economy into such a mess.
The Minister explained how our Government had significantly increased the spending by local government, not least through the rate support grant. It is significant to note an increase in the rate support grant of 8·6 per cent. which is above inflation. That is another £1,100 million to be spent by local government. So much for the hysterical weeping by the Opposition.
I have spent much of the debate puzzling over this extraordinary document which seems to use algebra to explain how the rate support grant is calculated. That was well caricatured by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price). One of the virtues of the community charge is that it will simplify this agonising mess that passes for local government finance. With minor exceptions, all adults will pay an equal amount and because of the social conscience of Parliament and people there will be generous rebates for 9 million community charge payers, those who are least able to pay.
I noted what Ministers said about subsidies and the effect of transfer of resources from one local government area to another. Those of us in Gravesham and in Kent generally know full well about this transfer of resources from our areas to badly run Labour cities. In my borough of Gravesham the average rate bill is £404. It is interesting to compare what would have been the community charge this year with that average rate bill.
The estimated community charge in Gravesham would have been £180. A little mathematics shows that those families with only two adults stand to gain. Households would lose out only when there was an average of well over two adults. A two-parent family will make a marginal gain in their bill and one-adult families, such as single-parent families and the widowed elderly, will gain substantially from the community charge. That £180 community charge that would have been levied in Gravesham compares favourably, thanks to the effective and efficient working of Kent county council and Gravesham borough council, even with Conservative authorities that would this year have levied an average charge of £196·40.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) called for a debate on Kent. He claimed that it was sad that no Kent constituency returned a Labour Member and that people in Kent were crying out for Labour Members. They would not cry out for them if they realised that, this year, the average Labour authority would have levied a community charge of £294·40. That is almost £100 extra per adult man and woman in Labour authorities compared with Conservative authorities. There is no doubt on which side the bread is buttered for the average community charge payer of the future.
Nevertheless, problems remain for this year, which is the last year of the rate support grant system, because the system places undue reliance on the numbers estimated by the registrar general. The dangers can be exemplified by the position in Gravesham where the registrar general tells us that, in the present financial year, he estimates the population to be 92,988 and that next year it will decrease to 91,692. That calculation appears to fly in the face of all other available statistics. For instance, the Audit Commission reports in its profile for 1988–89 that the birth rate in Gravesham is 13·7 per thousand of the population when the national average for a cluster family is 12·9. That would indicate an increase in the population, not a
554
decrease. The report goes on to state that the standard fertility ratio in Gravesham is 107 compared with a national average of 96. Again, that indicates that the population is rising.
The death rate in Gravesham is 9·6 per cent. per thousand, below the national average of 9·7. Fortunately, fewer of our elderly people are departing, thus keeping the population higher. The standard mortality rate is 92 compared with a national average of 96. All of those figures show that the population of Gravesham is not decreasing and, therefore, the rate support grant should not be restricted as it is being this year.
Our electorates are steady. We should also consider the new dwelling figures in various boroughs in Kent. In Gravesham, there were 350 new dwellings but the commission suggests a population reduction of 1,300. There are fewer new dwellings in the borough of Ashford, only 300, but, nevertheless, the registrar general suggests a rise in the population of 1,500. There are 240 new dwellings in the borough of Tunbridge Wells, yet the registrar general reports a rise in the population of 608. How can it be that Gravesham, with the highest growth in new dwellings, should record a decrease in the population?
The result is significant. The financial effect on the borough of Gravesham's rate support grant is significant, particularly the effect on its rate precept. If the borough's spending were to stand still, the borough council would have to ask the ratepayers for a 15 per cent. increase in their precept. That calculation appears to accentuate the likelihood of the registrar general's figures being wrong and, consequently, that the rate support grant for the borough of Gravesham is wrong.
All the hon. Members who have spoken this evening have shown that the current system does not work. We must welcome the Government's decision to throw out the rate support grant system. When my right hon. Friend the Minister goes out to bury the system, I shall happily wield the shovel.
8.26 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) suggested that there should be uniformity and that a fair formula should be fixed across the board for all authorities. I could not disagree more.
When I first learned that the hon. Gentleman was an ex-miner, I had a natural affection for him. Over the years, I have looked for any signs of his being an ex-miner. I have chatted with him from time to time and looked for blue marks, but I have not found any. Tonight, however—with the greatest respect—he has proved that he is no miner or, at least, that he has not been in the mining industry long enough. If he had been in the industry for a long time, he would have been taught by the old miners, especially if he had worked in the Yorkshire mines. They would have said to him, "Ee lad, tha only spakes when tha's summat t' say." Some of his remarks tonight were not called for and had nothing to do with the debate.
Mr. McLoughlin: My blue marks are quite substantial. I have 10,500; that is my majority in Derbyshire. A number of people tried to change my mind in the Staffordshire coalfields, perhaps not as effectively as they might have done in the Yorkshire coalfields.
Mr. Lofthouse: When the hon. Gentleman has as many blue marks as I have, he will have a majority of 22,500.
I have heard a great deal tonight about efficiency and competence. I wish to direct my remarks to the subject of Wakefield metropolitan district council. The Minister will agree that Wakefield has always been acknowledged as a competent and efficient council. It must have been because, two years ago, the Government knighted the leader of the time. They had previously knighted the deputy leader, so I should have thought that the Government would concede that the council was a responsible and well-run authority.
It is rather strange, therefore, that last year the Government grant was 41·8 per cent., but, for the coming year, it will be cut to 38·6 per cent. That is a 7·6 per cent. reduction. If we take inflation at 6·7 per cent., the rates for the authority should increase by 14 per cent. The Minister has said that the rate increase should be about 2 per cent. but how can the authority approach that mark without a slashing cut in services? If an authority is efficient and there is a cut in grant, something will have to suffer. As Wakefield is a responsible authority it has decided to increase its rate by 9·48 per cent. when the figure should be 14 per cent.
Mr. Gummer: I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The increase in grant to Wakefield is £2,233,000 and the estimated increase in general rate necessary for Wakefield if it spent at assessment should be 2 per cent. I wonder why the figure must be 14 per cent. With such an increase in grant, it should not be 14 per cent.
Mr. Lofthouse: I itemised the figures and explained earlier why it was 14 per cent. If the Minister cannot follow me, I will try again. The reduction in grant is equivalent to 7·6 per cent. If we take inflation at 6·4 per cent. into consideration, and if my mathematics have not deserted me, that makes 14 per cent. That was the increase that Wakefield required to stand still. I hope that the Minister has followed me.—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Please carry on.
Mr. Lofthouse: If Wakefield's rate support grant was the same as last year, there should have been a further £5 million.
Perhaps we should compare Wakefield's grant with the grant received by Bradford. Bradford has received an increase of around £23 million if we consider the three years prior to this year's allocation. I hope that the Minister will advise me if I am wrong. When Bradford was Labour-controlled for three consecutive years, it requested the Government to release the council from rate capping. It is rather ironic and interesting to note that, immediately the Conservatives gained control of the council, the grant was increased to the figure to which I have referred. Many people will not need to gaze too long into a crystal ball before they realise what has happened. Wakefield has lost £5 million.
Mr. Gummer: I am genuinely surprised. I believe that the hon. Gentleman's figures do not face the fact that we have taken the payment for the polytechnics out of the equation. If he considers the figures with that balance in mind, he will see that 14 per cent. is wrong and 2 per cent. is right. It is a question of how the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures.
556
I have just checked the figures. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the effect of removing the benefit cap from Bradford has also been felt by authorities such as Derbyshire and Birmingham. Neither of those authorities is in the same category as Bradford. The hon. Gentleman is the first person to suggest that there is any connection between a council's political views and the change in funding. We were pressed very hard, particularly by Birmingham, to make changes and I believe that it has been widely welcomed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would not suggest that the change was made after a change in control on the council. I do not want to play party politics with that, although I am quite prepared to have a good party political row if I want one.
Mr. Lofthouse: Some people may believe the Minister, but we will let people outside this place decide for themselves.
Mr. Soley: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. Perhaps my hon. Friend's local authority is taking account of a more realistic rate of inflation, closer to 7 or 8 per cent., than the Minister's figure of 4 per cent. Perhaps the authority is taking into account the additional cost of the poll tax, over and above the Government's assessment of it. With regard to the polytechnics, the block grant will still fall between 1988 and 1989 even when the polytechnics have been removed from the equation. The Minister is trying to dress that up today. He is wrong, and not for the first time.
Mr. Lofthouse: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can assure the Minister that my figures have been provided by Wakefield metropolitan district council's chief finance officer. If he is wrong, I will have to concede that, but where there is everyday local knowledge of what is happening in Wakefield, I accept the figures from the chief financial officer of that authority.
Mr. Gummer: I reiterate that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is wrong. The grant is not cut. It is increased by £2,233,000. The figures are quite clear. That means that the general rate should not increase by more than 2 per cent. for the authority to spend at assessment. That is reasonable, and we cannot accept the figures from the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse). No doubt we can argue about how best that money should be spent, but I hope that the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford will not ask his local authority to introduce a higher rise.
Mr. Lofthouse: The local authority has decided to increase its rate by 9·8 per cent.
Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is being very generous in allowing himself to be a telephone line between myself and the Minister. My point applies across the board and probably affects the Minister's local authority as much as any other. The block grant total—the amount actually paid after holdback—will fall between 1988–89 and 1989–90 from £8,959 million to £8,812 million. That is the overall fall, and it will apply to most local authorities.
Mr. Lofthouse: That is the last time that I will give way, because other hon. Members wish to speak.
There cannot be a uniform formula for all authorities; that will not work. The House is aware that the Wakefield metropolitan district council area is suffering depression arising from the rundown of the staple industry. The area

557
has lost 11,000 miners' jobs in four years. The authority must find money to attract other industries into the area. It is trying to sell the area to replace the jobs. When rates increase to the kind of level to which I have referred, we appreciate that there will be great hardship for many people in an already depressed area.
Of the total unemployed in the area, which in black spots reaches between 25 and 30 per cent., some 42 per cent. are under the age of 24. At that age people want to get married, set up homes and have children. However, with the increases in mortgage interest rates, some of those young people have been forced to leave the homes that they have bought and dreamed about and apply to the local authority to be housed. However, the local authorities cannot help them.
I still maintain that a figure of 14 per cent. is necessary, although it will be stuck at 9·8 per cent. There is evidence in the area that the responsible local authority is having many problems. For example, there are problems with road repairs and decorating schools. I received a letter from a blind person the other day in which I was told that the local authority could not fill the posts for three welfare officers for the blind. The dog warden service has been discontinued, although that service is essential in Wakefield and elsewhere.
There are also cuts in sports provisions. The House will be aware that, in the communities to which I have referred, a lot of the sports facilities were provided by British Coal and the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. Those facilities now depend on the local authorities, but the authorities have no grants or assistance to offer to maintain those facilities.
I hope that the Minister will consider the mining communities to which I have referred. My area is not blessed by the Government, who have not considered it for intermediate area status grants. It receives no assistance. The added problems for local government in areas like mine are severe. Instead of being cut, the rate support grant should have been increased.
8.39 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Tonight we say goodbye to a system that has been with us too long. Opposition Members have spoken eloquently about the changes that have been made to local authorities' grants since the Government took office, but they seem to have a blind spot. They seem to have forgotten the Labour Government's record. They seem to have forgotten that it was the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) who, as Secretary of State for the Environment, started reducing the amount of rate support grant to local authorities. To listen to Labour Members, anyone would think that the only changes have been made since 1979.
In this, the last rate support grant settlement, we have had a generous 8·6 per cent. increase. I wonder what sort of debate we would have been having and what contributions we would have had from Opposition Members had a Labour Government run the economy so well that they could increase local authority spending by that much. When was the last time that a Labour Government increased local authority expenditure by 8·6 per cent.? The fact that Opposition Members are stuck firmly to the Benches shows that they do not know.
Mr. Soley: There has been a £27·7 billion cut since 1979. If the Conservatives had kept up the Labour Government's policies, local authorities would have had £27·7 billion more. Under Labour the figure was 61 per cent. It is now down to about 40 per cent.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for answering a different question. He clearly cannot answer the one that I asked.
I wish to make a comparison between certain London boroughs. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) likes to refer to Brent's Labour administration as being like Pol Pot. That is unfair to Pol Pot. The London borough of Brent could be much more accurately compared with the script of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?". Anyone who has seen that film knows that in it, as in the London borough of Brent, nothing is quite what it seems—the truth is never the truth for more than a couple of minutes and anybody in the film is never responsible for anything that might have happened.
It was pointed out to me by a Labour councillor from the London borough of Brent only a couple of days ago that the borough has failed over a number of years to face up to its problems. It has failed to face up to the reality of the amount of money available to it. It is one thing to have marvellous spending plans and to say how much one would like to spend on individual areas to solve problems, but when that money is simply not available it is irresponsible to make such decisions and many people are hurt.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: I thank the hon. Gentleman for agreeing with my criticisms of the present administration in Brent. Will he also share my criticisms of the previous administration which left the incoming Labour administration with a budget in which income was 27 per cent. below expenditure?
Mr. Hughes: The fact is, as is well known, that that Conservative administration was in power for only a short time. Compared with the previous Labour administration, it turned round that budget, although not so fast as one might have wished. It is a bit rich to blame all the problems of the London borough of Brent on a brief Conservative administration. The problems had existed for a number of years, as is now admitted in private by Labour councillors in the borough. For a number of years, several councils have failed to make the proper spending decisions.
One is left with people being hurt by that lack of attention to detail—that lack of proper decision-making. Nothing so characterises that appalling council more than the fact that it prefers to spend money on a women's committee, on maintaining its so-called nuclear-free zone and on having political staff for its councillors rather than having staff in the social services department. When a family finds itself in the unfortunate position that one of its members has to be taken into a mental hospital under mental health legislation, a member of the family now has to take that decision rather than, as in every other council, someone from the social services department. What a heartless way to treat people, and what a heartless decision for a family to have to make simply because the London borough of Brent could not be bothered to live within its means.
I regret that I missed the speech made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) because of my other duties in the House, but I shall read it with great

559
interest. I understand that he made a comparison between rate levels in Harrow and in Ealing. He told the House, quite properly, that the rate level in Harrow was higher than that in Ealing. That crystallises what is wrong with the rating system and why we have decided to get rid of it and move to a system that is more accountable, allowing people to see how money is spent and what is being done in their name. Although the hon. Gentleman is right, he did not tell the House that Ealing plans to increase its rates by 35 per cent. this year. He does not want to acknowledge that. Last year there was a standstill in the rates because of the Government's generosity in giving the council a large rate support grant. The year before, the London borough of Ealing put its rates up by 65 per cent. Expenditure in Ealing has gone up and up. The council has not bothered to contain it. That is what is so damaging to people and industry in that borough.
Like my right hon. Friend the Minister, I too live in Ealing. We have to live with its services and pay its rate increases.
Mr. Soley: If next year's increase goes through in Ealing—it may not—the rate will be lower in real terms than it was two years ago. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that Ealing has been rate capped while his council has not? Is it because it is Conservative controlled or because the Government have already taken £10 million off Ealing in rate support grant in the past couple of years, even though its rates in real terms are less than they were two years ago?
Mr. Hughes: That is a bit rich when Ealing's rate support grant this year is £72·9 million and Harrow's is only £43·1 million. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are strict criteria to be met for a council to be rate capped. Harrow does not meet either of those criteria, although it nearly met one.
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend should point out that the situation has been altered considerably by the fact that Ealing was rate capped, which meant that excessive rates were pulled down. This year Ealing is getting an £8 million increase in grant. Therefore, it could have a rate increase on a spending assumption of 3 per cent. rather than 35 per cent. Anyone who lives in the London borough of Ealing, as I and my hon. Friend do, could give it a long list of things that it could stop spending on, as well as one or two things that it could start spending on, in order to provide better services at lower cost.
Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend's last point is precisely the one that I want to make. We should pursue the comparison between the London borough of Harrow and its neighbours, Brent and Ealing. Living in the London borough of Ealing and seeing the change of administration and the contract for the collection of rubbish taken away from the private contractors and given back to the council work force, I did not think that the system had been changed, rather that it had been abolished; certainly the council does not come round very often to collect the rubbish.
If one looks at the movement of the population or talks to estate agents, one realises that people are clamouring to get out of Ealing and Brent and into Harrow. Any estate agent in my constituency will tell you that that is the
560
reality, and even if people are not moving they are making sure that their children go to school in Harrow. We are grateful for the money that we receive as a result of children leaving the appalling education systems of Brent and Ealing to move over the border and enjoy one of the best in the United Kingdom. The figures show that Harrow's education system has been top for three years.
The Government's provisions represent a generous settlement and mark the end of a bad system, but it is up to councils to make spending decisions and to ensure protection for their ratepayers by making them prudently and sensibly. One makes the comparison between Bradford council, for example, which makes prudent decisions and lives within its means so that Bradford and its people may prosper and Sheffield and Brent councils, which have to make huge cuts in their services. Labour Members never comment on them, but those huge and unplanned cuts in services greatly disadvantage the people living under those authorities. If the Labour party were serious, it would welcome the Government's measure as being a generous settlement.
8.50 pm
Mr. Pat Wall: It is as well to remind ourselves of the figures quoted earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), now that we face a cut in rate support grant in real terms—which is based on the rate of inflation—and which, as a result of the Government's disastrous economic policy, is far lower than I realised. My hon. Friend points out that the Government's grant-related expenditure provision has fallen from 46·2 per cent. to 43·3 per cent., and is now £5 billion less in real terms than in 1978–79. Over the whole of that period, rate support grant has fallen by £28·4 billion. Next year, we shall also face increased expenditure of about 16 per cent. arising from the introduction of the poll tax, at least in London.
In two debates on rate support grant I have made a plea against the cuts imposed on Bradford. Tonight, it is a pleasant duty to be in the Chamber to hear remarks about the extra money that Bradford has been given, whereas Wakefield and Leeds has not. I am sure that that is purely fortuitous, and happily coincides with the return of a Conservative council to the metropolitan borough of Bradford. For two years, I argued the case against the £28 million cut in Bradford's grant resulting from application of the so-called multiplier, even though the council at no time exceeded its grant-related expenditure. I have protested also against cuts of about 70 per cent. in real terms in capital allocation grant over the past four years. I assure the Minister that I am sure those cuts were not political—but then I still believe in the Cottingley fairies, as do most local people.
Those cuts are part of a general attack on local authorities, established during the course of implementing about 20 new Acts. They are also part of a privatisation programme that threatens the jobs of more than 700,000 people, and of a general policy of shifting resources from the poor to the rich. As if the cold, hard figures were not bad enough, the harsh realities for many local authorities and their citizens are castastrophic, yet earlier the Minister said the Government like to give help to those who most need it.
In a previous debate, I crossed swords with the Minister on the question of council house rents. Subsequently, he

561
said he had treated me rather harshly. However, I was not particularly terrified by the Minister's comments or arguments on that occasion. Perhaps it was because I was speaking from the Bench apparently permanently occupied by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)—one of whom is the most fearsome of my right hon. and hon. Friends, while the other is among the biggest of them. However, it is worth considering the council rents situation in a city such as Bradford.
Nationally, there has been a two thirds cut in local authority housing construction since 1979. Despite sales to private tenants, Bradford still has 35,000 council properties. Its repairs backlog alone is budgeted at 10 times the Government's total housing allocation. Bradford has 7,628 people on its housing waiting list, and 1,047 priority need homeless. Only a handful of pensioners' flats are being built.
In the period between 1983–84 and 1987–88, and before the new social security provisions came into operation, there was a doubling of Bradford's homeless due to mortgage defaults. The loss of housing benefits of £80,000 per week, £67,000 of which is council housing revenue, amounts to £4·1 million per year. That is a savage attack on the ability of Bradford's poor to purchase goods, having a knock-on effect on the local economy. The maximum level of housing benefit is set at £38·93p per week. Under the new local government housing finance Bill, Bradford will have to meet extra expenditure out of housing finance. At present, 70 per cent. of council rents are met from housing benefit.
In an earlier brush with the Minister I raised the point that rent arrears in Bradford have for the first time risen above £2 million. Nationally, there has been a 50 per cent. increase in council property rents. It is absurd for the Government to argue that 50 per cent. of people have deliberately decided not to pay council rents. The figures I give arise because of the change in housing benefit and the resulting increase in poverty.
Bradford has suffered one increase of £3 per week in council rents, with another to follow. We have had a freeze on housing benefits. There have been cuts in the standard of living, with, for example, 9,500 school meals being abolished every day because of increases of 30 and 50 per cent. in school meal prices. We have already seen the dismissal of the poorly paid women working in our school meals service, with redundancies reaching an estimated 1,000.
I conclude with two real cases. Conservative Members do not like hearing about cases of hardship but I assure them that they are enjoyed even less by those actually suffering deprivation. One of my constituents is aged 63, has had operations on both hips, and can only get around on sticks. He has one lung, and he has an epileptic son of 23 who is out of work. For two years they have stayed in a house without gas or electricity, cooking on a small camp stove, huddled around a paraffin heater that gives off more fumes than heat. They have had no running water since the winter of last year. When the woman was taken into hospital she lost £2 in benefit because she was treated as a new customer and reassessed.
On Christmas Eve I visited a family whose doctor had referred them to me as suffering from malnutrition. They were not wicked or feckless people; this was a single mother with two teenage children. The 18-year-old son had lost his job and his unemployment benefit had been
562
reduced. The 17-year-old daughter was on a youth training scheme, and some bureaucrat had decided that she should be paid monthly rather than weekly. She had to find £20—£5 a week—in fares before she was paid. The lass could afford so little food that she fainted twice at work.
Those are not special cases, but the reality of life in Bradford. Those are the problems of inner-city deprivation, which emerge from the cold figures representing cuts in Government support for local authorities during the period of Conservative rule. The problems will worsen as a result of the poll tax and the new Housing Act. The Government are storing up for themselves an enormous revolt by people who will no longer be able to suffer, for themselves or their children, the misery that they and their policies are inflicting.
9 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: Every time an hon. Member gets to his feet there is a rustling of papers as other hon. Members search for whatever ammunition can be found among the statistics relating to the speaker's local council. Let me put them out of their misery and give them the statistics for my borough and county councils.
In the past seven years my borough council, Spelthorne, has reduced its rate by more than 67 per cent.—so there is no need to look that one up. My county council, Surrey, is out of grant, so there is nothing to be gained from asking me what happens in a county when RSG is reduced. Despite rate reductions and loss of grant, services in both councils have improved year by year. There is not necessarily any connection between reductions in rates and grant and cuts in services, and I have examples to prove that.
Whatever hon. Members may make of local cases, the debate in general—as always with local government debates—generates more heat than light. We hear claim and counterclaim. The same aims are espoused on both sides of the House. Both sides say that they want better democracy and better services. We then indulge in a kickabout because we are apparently heading in opposite directions.
Let us take one of those claims. Both sides have said tonight that they want better democracy. I have no hesitation in saying that the way to preserve democracy is to seek better value for money, to protect ratepayers and to lay down minimum standards for councils to follow. We are being accused tonight—as in every local government debate, especially debates about money—of being anti-democratic, but where is the democracy in the sort of waste that Labour councils typically go in for? Where is the local democracy in empty council houses and uncollected rates and rents?
Mr. Soley: Let me follow that line. Where is the democracy in the 6 per cent. of Government-owned houses that are empty—three times more than the local authority average? Where is the democracy in the other kinds of waste brought about by the present Government? Is it being suggested that we should abolish national as well as local democracy?
Mr. Wilshire: That makes my point entirely. Both sides will claim that they are in favour of democracy and then make opposite points.
The other thing about this debate on democracy and finance that I find difficult to stomach is that those who try

563
to lecture us on our lack of democracy are themselves guilty of double standards. We are told that local government should be free to do what it likes—except, of course, if it wants to go on running grammar schools. We are told that local government should be free to raise its own funds—except, of course, from council house tenants or ratepayers when it is convenient or politically expedient not to bother to collect their money.
Double standards will get us nowhere in this debate. The way to make progress is to stick with the facts in the reports before us, to look at the 1989–90 settlement and to accept the reality of the planned expenditure for the final year of the present system being allowed to rise by 8·6 per cent. Opposition Members may wish to make cheap points about inflation, but an increase in expenditure of 8·6 per cent. will be above whatever they claim. It was asked earlier whether an increase in inflation would mean further change and an increase in rate support grant. If inflation goes down, as we believe that it will, will Labour councils hand back some of their rate support grant? Will nobody volunteer a refund?
Mr. Bernie Grant: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that local authority inflation is higher than inflation generally because local authority inflation includes a number of items that the Government do not use to calculate the national inflation figures? If that is the case, the 8·6 per cent. increase that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is barely sufficient to cope with local authority inflation as opposed to national inflation.
Mr. Wilshire: I accept that some local councils are guilty of increasing their expenditure because they cannot be bothered to keep it down, and I accept that some pay increases are unnaturally high because local government does not do its best to keep pay settlements down.
The report represents good news. It means that if councils are sensible there need not be a rate increase of more than 2 per cent. It means that services can be protected unless councils have party political reasons for trying to undermine them. It means that there need be no risk of variations. One of the reports that we are considering tonight is the fourth report for 1986–87. All those years after the money was spent, council treasurers are still trying to work out what the income might be. That is crazy.
The other piece of good news about tonight's debate is that this settlement is the last, so we shall not have any more gobbledegook of the kind in these reports. Given all that good news, why do Opposition Members make so much fuss? The answer is simple. Labour Members make a fuss because they do not want the public to know the truth. They want to disguise the fact that the rates need go up by only 2 per cent. We get all this hot air because the Labour party wants to mislead the public about the need for rate-capping and the truth about why it was introduced. When Labour Members talk about local government they are still hooked on some desperately out-of-date beliefs. They still believe that income is limitless and that the ratepayers can be soaked. They still believe that throwing money at a problem is the only answer and that value for money always means making cuts. When will they learn that value for money means that
564
if local authorities save money where they are wasting it they can use that money to provide more and better services in other sectors?
9.8 pm
Mr. Ken Livingstone: I did not originally intend to speak in the debate, but there have been so many completely unjustified and unbalanced attacks on Brent council that I wish to put the record straight. I am prepared to be as critical of Brent council as any Conservative Member when it is not working in the interests of local people. It is not my duty as a Member of Parliament to explain the shortcomings of the council to the people; it is my job to represent the views of the people to the council. Neither am I here to defend the track record of the last Labour Government. I condemned them at the time, as a local councillor. I condemned them when they made cuts in the rate support grant in the aftermath of the IMF talks and I condemned them when they took extra controls to interfere in the running of local government. That mistake has been amplified 100 times by the Government.
There has been a drift to centralisation which is totally unacceptable and profoundly damaging to competent administration in local government. I shall give one example from the past. When the Labour party took control of the GLC in 1981 and inherited a Tory budget, we took office under a commitment from the Tory Government to provide £140 million of rate support grant out of a total budget of £450 million. Within days of Labour taking office, we were told that that was to be cut arbitrarily by £5 million. Once we announced that we were going ahead with the commitment to reduce fares, we were told by Government that the entire £140 million would be withdrawn. How can one budget in a realistic way when money is clawed back in that way? That was only the beginning of the Government's track record. It has got far worse.
I am not surprised that, throughout the country, lifelong Conservative, Labour and Alliance councillors—people who committed themselves to providing a service to their local communities—have given up active local government service because they feel that they are being reduced to ciphers of central Government.
I ask my colleague, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), as well as condemning mistakes that the present Brent administration may have made, also to condemn the appalling acts of profligacy by the outgoing Conservative administration that ran Brent for three years with the support of three Liberals. Because it was coming up for re-election and did not want to face the consequences of the way in which it had mismanaged the borough, it left a budget with expenditure of £226 million and income of £165 million—a gap of £61 million. I am amazed that the district auditor did not surcharge it for that irresponsibility.
I am not surprised that problems were caused. I have criticised decisions that Brent may have taken that in practice have not dealt with those issues as wisely as they might have been handled. But what occurred on that occasion was an outrageous and scandalous abuse of public trust, and if blame is to be heaped on Brent council, let it be equally and fairly spread.
The real blame rests with Government, who have massively cut rate support grant. We in Brent are now

565
getting 40 per cent. less in grant from Government than the area received under the Labour Government. Under Labour, moneys were allocated to local authorities on the basis of need on defined criteria, which were applied equally to every local authority. As soon as the Conservatives took office, new criteria were introduced which allowed the Government to fix the system in a partisan way each year so that some councils saw all of their rate support grant clawed back.
What an outrage it is that for the best part of this decade ILEA has not had a penny of rate support grant to go towards providing education in inner London, yet Tory councils throughout the south-east are often getting 40 to 50 per cent. of their education costs covered. The allocation of grant to local authorities should be conducted on a completely even-handed basis, not on the basis of whether they are Labour or Conservative.
How would Conservative Members like it if a Labour Government were operating in that way? How would they like it if they suddenly had their entire rate support grant clawed back by central Government while Labour-controlled councils saw their income from Government doubled? They would be outraged.
What would be said of the board of directors of a private company that fiddled its accounts in the way in which the Government fiddle the rate support grant system? We would call it a crook and say that it was guilty of fraud. But because the Government can make the rules and laws and then change them year by year, they get away with it.
On how many occasions have Ministers had to propose emergency retrospective legislation to make legal decisions that they had taken but which had been overturned by the courts? Billions of pounds have had to be dealt with in that way. It is a disaster. How can local authorities at officer or member level plan a programme of expenditure fairly and even-handedly when the rules are changed year by year?
I fear that local government in Britain is virtually dead. We shall soon be at the point when nobody will wish to serve in local government because they will feel that they have no real responsibility and power. We shall have witnessed the death of a vital strand of British democracy by a series of stealthy, devious underhand mechanisms conducted by the Conservative party.
9.14 pm
Mr. Simon Coombs: It is a pleasure to be the last Back-Bench Member to speak in what I hope will be the last debate on the rate support grant.
In the few minutes remaining, I shall bring the House up to date with the adventures of the borough of Thamesdown. The councillors who form the majority in the borough have been described as "loonies". That description is not entirely fair, despite the fact that they indulge in support for organisations of every kind; despite the fact that they link with far-off countries in central America which will be of little benefit to the ratepayers of Swindon; and despite the fact that they warned in 1984 that rate capping would prevent them carrying out their responsibilities—since when they have been able to carry them out to a greater extent at greater expense to the ratepayers. There is money in Thamesdown for everything—for leisure centres, community centres, modern sculptures which give offence to almost everyone in the borough and a plethora of daffodils which are a delight to
566
the eye every spring. There is never any shortage of money in Thamesdown. The watchwords are "naughty but nice". To compare Thamesdown's grant-related expenditure with what the Government suggest as appropriate is to compare Mount Everest with Ben Nevis.
Rate capping inevitably happened in 1984. As the rate income of the borough rises because of the growth and prosperity brought by the private sector, the rate level is reduced by Government, and it is hard for anyone to argue with that. Inevitably, however, that means that ingenuity is needed from the local Labour councillors. They instructed the borough treasurer—a man of the greatest probity and resourcefulness—to look for new ideas. The first suggestion was creative accountancy, which kept the ship of state afloat for three or four years. One cannot accuse Labour councillors in Thamesdown of lacking flexibility. They said that it was not possible to sell council houses. When they were ordered to do so by Government, they had no right-to-buy forms available and told interested customers to go to Bristol. Then they relented and sold about 4,000 council houses in a few years. Inevitably, the sale of assets followed.
Councillors will not sell the shopping centre because it is a monument to municipal Socialism, but they are at last prepared to consider selling land. The first land that they think of selling this year is part of the largest and most attractive park in the centre of town, but it will help them to dispose of a building nearby. My constituents say that if they sell part of the Lawns they will sell anything. I say that they can sell almost everything else, but not public parks.
The next move is what is known as factoring—a new name on the local government scene which means mortgaging the future and disposing of assets to match current expenditure by letting it off to the finance men of the City. The Audit Commission says that that method of local government business is wrong and illegal, but that has not stopped the council in Thamesdown. On 22 February, we shall know whether it is legal or not. If it is, the people of Thamesdown will lose out on the ever-increasing value of the land that is to be sold in one heap to pay for this year's current expenditure. If it is illegal, the council will almost certainly be unable to formulate a legal budget for next year. If that happens, my constituents will almost certainly suffer the most savage cuts in services, which need not have happened if the council's financial affairs had been planned and executed in a proper way over the past five years.
The information provided to the House for this debate shows that of the seven rate-capped councils five were prepared to accept re-determination—four were successful in obtaining an increase in the funds available and only one was told that it must spend at last year's level—and two councils refused to talk to the Minister. The people of Thamesdown and my constituents lose out, because of all the Labour councils up and down the country Thamesdown is one of only two that will not talk to my right hon. Friend the Minister.
I long for the time when this crazy system is abolished for ever. It leads local councils into the muddle and stupidity that I have had to witness over the past five and a half years from Labour councillors in my borough. The sooner they and the system go, the better.
9.20 pm
Mr. William O'Brien: A number of issues arise out of the rate support grant reports. The Minister criticised the rate support grant system and swanned around criticising local government. We should make it abundantly clear that the Minister referred only to the new proposals and the poll tax but we are discussing grants.
Under the new procedures the grants system will apply with 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. of local government income being controlled by the Minister. The grant system will still apply but not in its present form. There is substantial concern about the way in which the new grants system will apply when the present system is abolished. If anyone thinks that the Minister will introduce a formula under the new grants system which will satisfy all the needs of local government—particularly the authorities represented by certain Tory Members who have been expressing concern at the way they were treated under the present system—they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. Since 1979 there has been a reduction in rate support grant from 61 per cent. budgeted by the Labour Government to 43 per cent. under this Government. One can imagine that happening when the Government get hold of the global amount of rate support grant to be handed out to local authorities.
Last July the Secretary of State announced that the expenditure provision for the current year, 1989–90, would be £29,140 million. That figure was based on a then projected inflationary factor of 4·7 per cent., so the scenario sketched by the Secretary of State in his famous juggling act with the figures in his usual maladroit way allowed him to state in the House that the increase in the inflation factor for 1989–90 over 1988–89 was to be 4·7 per cent. The Secretary of State tried to demonstrate his compassion for local government by saying that 4·7 per cent. was a generous consideration.
When we examine some of the other features that are included in these reports on the rate support grant to local government we find that, excluding the provision for poll tax costs of £110 million in the current year, the increase in the 1989–90 budget compared with last year's budget is only 4·3 per cent. and not 4·7 per cent. as the Secretary of State claimed. Once again, the Secretary of State has got it all wrong and there is a mismatch in his representations of the rate support grant settlement. Since the announcement of the provisions of the rate support grant last July, the inflation rate has accelerated dramatically and is running now at no less than 6·4 per cent. It is forecast to peak—or pimp, I believe, was the word—during 1989 to 7 per cent. and may reach 8 per cent.
The result of the Secretary of State's abysmal record in provision for inflation in that the rate support grant settlement means that the allowed increase in the RSG is wholly inadequate and should be reviewed. The shortfall between what is forecast to meet the increase in inflation and what is provided to maintain the essential services in local government will be about £1 billion. That reduction in the RSG could mean one of two things, which have been described on several occasions by my hon. Friends. There may be cuts in services or rate increases above the level that the Government suggests.
Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman has been enthusiastically trying to talk inflation up as high as he can, but he has talked it up only to 8 per cent. He wholly
568
ignores the fact that the amount made available through grant next year will be 9 per cent. up and he has not yet reached that figure. What is his problem?
Mr. O'Brien: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is unaware of what his own party's Ministers are doing. If he reads the report, he will see that the amount allocated for inflation was 4·7 per cent. It is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who has said that he expects inflation to blip at 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. in 1989. I am, therefore, only using the figures of Ministers in the same party as the hon. Gentleman. Now that people have realised the extent of the costs concerned with the poll tax—
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. O'Brien: Not until later. I shall deal with the point that the hon. Gentleman raised in a little while.
The figure of £110 million for poll tax preparation was produced last July when the authorities responsible for the poll tax were beginning to consider the costs. Now that they have realised how much the costs will be, the Minister should agree to give a commitment to increase the resources provided by the Government if the actual costs are higher than those determined by his Department's formula. It would be cruel and dishonest to the people who rely on local government services not to increase resources in line with the formula.
Mr. Harry Cohen: My hon. Friend referred to the cost of the poll tax. Is he aware that in my borough of Waltham Forest the Government have allocated £683,434 for the implementation of the poll tax, yet the independent consultants Peat Marwick say that it will cost £6·31 million in one borough alone. That leaves a gap of £5·7 million to be met by local people.
Mr. O'Brien: That illustrates my point. I hope that the Government will make up the difference between what has been budgeted for and what is actually needed.
A significant factor is the aggregate Exchequer grant, and it is helpful to examine the record on that since the Government came to office in 1979. For 1979–80, the last year of the Labour Government, 61 per cent. of local government services were provided from AEG. For the coming year, the Government's AEG contribution has fallen to 43·3 per cent. of relevant expenditure.
If we deduct from the total AEG for 1989–90 the £835 million that has been withdrawn in the change in funding of the polytechnics, we find that there is still a cut in AEG for 1989–90 from £8·95 million to £8·12 million. Expenditure and grant provision by the Government are being reduced by £835 million to reflect the transfer of the polytechnics, which will have no benefit for local ratepayers. There is a massive cut in block grant of more than—
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. O'Brien: In due course.
Significantly, the Government maintain a margin between the total expenditure of the local authorities and grant-related expenditure. That penalises the authorities which have to meet greater need. Every time the Minister for Local Government comes to the Dispatch Box he says

569
that in future the system will be based on need. The rate support grant system is already based on need, yet local authorities' needs are being ignored by the Minister.
We have also to consider the devastation caused to local government by the Secretary of State when for the purposes of the Rate Support Grants Act 1988 he decided that all grant entitlements—
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman should not be so hasty. His turn will come.
In July last year the Secretary of State decided that all grant entitlement for previous years would be frozen on the basis of the expenditure data that was with his Department on 6 July 1988. The Secretary of State should reconsider his decision because of the unfairness of that holdback, which was referred to by more than one of his hon. Friends. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the question of holdback.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Let me ask the hon. Gentleman two questions. Will he confirm—whatever he likes to dredge out in the way of details—that the overall effect is that the RSG settlement is raised by 8·6 per cent. next year? Secondly, will he tell the House what the rate support grant was in the year when inflation peaked at 27 per cent. under the Labour Government?
Mr. O'Brien: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that when he said that people were leaving the borough of Ealing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The hon. Gentleman said that people were leaving the borough of Ealing and going to Harrow, West for better education. His constituency is well down the list when it comes to nursery provision. He is afraid of the real issues on education—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] When it comes to education, the hon. Gentleman does not know what is happening in his own constituency. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get back to an orderly debate.
Mr. O'Brien: Provision is made in the bulk grant formula for fire and civil defence, which has not been mentioned in this debate. When the bulk grant system was introduced in 1981, the Department of the Environment intended it to provide sufficient grant to the fire and civil defence authorities to allow them to provide a standard of service at a standard of rate levied on their ratepayers. Since 1986, however, the fire and civil defence authorities have had their level of services determined by the Home Office, which has developed a complex and puzzling system for distributing the grants, which in turn has significantly affected the precepts levied by the fire and civil defence authorities.
The Minister for Local Government is fully aware of this anomalous situation, because on Wednesday 6 December 1988 the Minister held a meeting with people from west and south Yorkshire fire and civil defence authorities, along with Members of Parliament representing those areas. It was explained to the Minister in detail, and made abundantly clear, what those irregular precepts levied in different areas would mean. The variations in precepts levied to provide services for fire and civil defence authorities in the metropolitan areas range from £10 per
570
head of population in one area to £14 in west Yorkshire. That is the unfairness of the system about which the Minister has been told. Those variations in fire protection are due in the main to the way in which the grant system is distributed. The grant system is unfair because of the way in which the Minister and his colleagues in his Department distribute the grants.
At that meeting with the Minister an effective and fair system was outlined, with the appropriate adjustments to meet the level of services as determined by the Home Office—not the Department of the Environment. The understanding between the Home Office, which determines the level of fire cover for an area, and the Department of the Environment, which decides the level of grant to provide that fire cover, is abysmal. Ratepayers in Yorkshire, especially in west Yorkshire, are again under attack by the Government because of this mismatch of rate support grant distribution.
The Minister was given a solution to the problem well before the 1989–90 settlement was decided. He has chosen, however, to ignore the proposals completely. Why does he not accept that there is a need to review the grant for the fire and civil defence authorities? Will he consider the situation and accept the suggestion that the total GRE for fire and civil defence authorities, as circulated in the main rate support grant report, should be redistributed in the current year among the authorities involved? I suggest to him that two thirds of the total should be allocated on the basis of the existing methodology and one third on the basis of the establishment levels. That is not a perfect solution, but it would be fairer and nearer to the needs element which is so sacred to the Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) referred to the situation in the Wakefield area, especially that concerning highways and roads, which are included in the transport grant. It is classed as a supplementary grant and is restricted by the Secretary of State deciding what the programme of local authorities should be. In the main, the transport grant covers roads for longer distance traffic and circular and bypass roads, but people are concerned about other roads and streets. Local authorities urgently need to be able to tackle the ever-increasing problem of holes in the roads. Because of the limited expenditure imposed on authorities by the Government and the cuts in rate support grant, repair work on the holes cannot go ahead, so our urban and estate roads are generally deteriorating. I ask the Minister to look into the problems for local authorities of utilities opening up and reinstating road surfaces.
If there is no more money in the rate support grant for maintaining roads, there must be a change of legislation. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point. Failing a change of direction and application of the rate support grant for next year, I ask Conservative Members who have spoken against the Government's measure to join us in voting against it.
9.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): This is the final speech in the last debate on the rate support grant system. Throughout the debate Opposition Members have sought to dig up the past. Being reluctant to consider next year's

571
rate support grant settlement, they paraded a variety of figures on the rates of grant in past years, with which they unsuccessfully tried to discredit this settlement.
The fact is that next year the grant for local authorities will be £13·575 billion, an increase of 9 per cent. That is £1·1 billion more than will be paid out this year. That is the money on the table, the increase in grant in the contribution from the taxpayer. It is the highest increase of any year in which this Government have been in office. The additional grant will enable authorities, if they spend sensibly, to budget for very low rate increases of about 2 per cent. on average.
In recent years there has been a preoccupation in local government finance with expenditure restraint, through grant adjustments, targets and rate limitation. Many of the speeches made today have shown the flaws in the present system. The Local Government Finance Act 1988 is a move towards establishing local accountability. It depends crucially on the relationship between paying for local services and voting in local elections. Of the 35 million local electors in England, only 18 million are liable to pay rates now.
Many hon. Members have spoken about the importance of local government, about its value, about its role in serving local ratepayers and about it being able to be more autonomous so as to provide services efficiently and effectively. We believe that the new system of local government finance makes that possible. My right hon. Friend the Minister, in his role as the Minister for Local Government, has often spoken of his confidence in local government and of the importance of ensuring that it is accountable.
Our policy is to widen the liability for local taxation to almost all voters through a simple, clear community charge, and to help those who cannot pay it in full. That is a logical and essential step towards greater local authority freedom. The Government should be able to stand further back from local government because the electors will stand much closer. When everyone pays something towards the costs of local services, voters will be more conscious of the cost consequences of local decisions.
One of the complaints by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) about the present system was that there was no link between rate rises and increased spending. That is a ringing endorsement of our policies. The whole point of the community charge is to ensure that local people will feel the effect of local decisions.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith tried to argue on the grounds of fairness. That rang rich. For a long time, many of my hon. Friends have failed to understand the fairness of the pensioner paying the same rates as the household next door with several earners. He compared the millionaire with the pensioner. I hope that he knows that the millionaire contributes 15 times as much towards local government expenditure as the single pensioner. Four out of five single pensioners and nine out of 10 one-parent households will pay less under the community charge, and 9·5 million people on low incomes will receive assistance.
When one looks at the injustice suffered by many people on low incomes in high rateable value areas who have to contribute to those on high incomes in low rateable value areas, one sees that questions of justice are especially
572
important. People who are concerned about that should appreciate the opportunities offered by the community charge.
Mr. Fatchett rose—
Mrs. Bottomley: I shall not give way because I want to make progress. The hon. Gentleman spoke about Leeds and will want to hear what I have to say.
The settlement provides £110 million for the extra current expenditure costs that authorities will incur in preparing for the community charge. This expenditure is financed by a specific grant of £55 million, with the other 50 per cent. being reflected in block grant. An extra capital allocation of £135 million will be made in 1989–90 in addition to the £25 million in 1988–89. The provision that we have announced is derived from the forecast by Price Waterhouse which made an independent study of the preparation costs. It strikes a balance between the Price Waterhouse estimate of the costs that authorities would incur if they used administrative procedures similar to those presently followed, and the amount needed if all authorities operated in the same way as the most efficient authorities.
Having lost the parliamentary battle on the merits of the community charge, it is inevitable that the opponents of the policy should now turn their energies to exaggerating the costs of implementation. The most recent estimates put forward by local authority associations are based on surveys that simply asked member authorities how much they thought they might spend if they were given a blank cheque. On the basis of the findings in the independent study carried out by Price Waterhouse, the Government are confident that the forecast is objective and is to be preferred to survey results. We think that we are providing sufficient resources to meet the reasonable costs of preparation by authorities.
Many hon. Members spoke about the change in grant levels. When Labour left office, the grant percentage was about 60 per cent. Restoring that would cost about £4 billion which is equivalent to 3p or 4p on the standard rate of income tax. The Opposition have not promised to restore the grant percentage to its previous level. They have said only that grants to local government will increase in line with the growth of the economy nationally. I doubt whether their plans for the economy would enable them to increase grant payments by 9 per cent. or £1·1 billion.
The hon. Members for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), for Hammersmith, for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), and for Truro (Mr. Taylor) spoke about inflation. The settlement allows authorities to increase spending broadly in line with inflation as measured by the gross domestic product deflator, which is generally accepted as the measure of inflation in the economy as a whole. The retail price index is an appropriate measure in many areas of Government activity and is used to uprate many of the social security benefits such as the state retirement pension, unemployment benefit, invalid care allowance and statutory sick pay. For local authority matters, the GDP deflator is a much more accurate measure.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith asked whether we would increase grant if inflation turns out to be higher than anticipated. We have already made generous provision for grant in the settlement. I remind him that it

573
is being increased by £1·1 billion, an increase of 9 per cent. That is well above the rate of inflation and if authorities budget sensibly, they should be able to keep rate increases low.
Mr. Soley: That is not the question that I asked. If the rate of inflation approaches 7 or 8 per cent., as even the Chancellor accepts that it may, will the Government increase the rate support grant to take that into account—yes or no?
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman should know that the rate support grant is already well above that figure. A 9 per cent. increase is being made available.
Reference to Schleswig-Holstein is an indispensable part of many debates on rate support grant. However, reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) to the city fathers of Florence, Euclid and Hamlet and the Prince of Denmark were novel developments. Eastleigh's situation may seem harsh. It is losing grant, although it is not an overspender, but it has relatively low needs and well above-average resources per head. In addition, its resources are rising faster than its needs. Its grant has been calculated on the same principles as apply to all authorities and I can assure my hon. Friend that it has not been selected for special treatment. In a system based on rateable values it is unlikely to do any better. Its low spending will be better reflected under the new system. When the system is fully operational, the charge payers will face lower bills than most of their neighbours in Hampshire, based on this year's figures. In the meantime, we have to operate the system as it is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who had a long and distinguished period at the Department, spoke strongly about the effect of sharp rate increases in Ealing. It would have been difficult to spell out more clearly the importance of efficient and effective services in a London borough. Whether asking for building control, rate rebates or all the other services provided by local authorities, he made it clear that efficient and effective distribution of services is a prime requirement for helping those whom local authorities are there to assist. He asked what protection there would be for his constituents in future if Ealing continued to demand excessively high community charges. As he said, Ealing has slipped through the capping net for the coming year, but, if it persists with its plans for a 35 per cent. rate increase, that will show just how little regard it has for the interests of the people of Ealing.
The charge-capping powers that we have taken will enable us to deal with the situation that my hon. Friend fears, if it should arise. Charge capping is designed to enable chargepayers to be protected from the actions of an irrational and irresponsible council which, perhaps to prove some sort of distorted political point, decides on excessive spending policies.
Mr. Blunkett: How does the hon. Lady square what she has just said with her comments a few moments ago about how the poll tax would increase accountability? How does she square what her Government have done in terms of rate-capping Ealing and imposing a 25 per cent. reduction in its rate and the attacks that have been made by her colleagues by rate-capping a number of authorities over the past five years with the notion that those authorities that have been rate-capped and have had their expenditure and rate limits fixed by the Government are somehow to
574
blame for what the Government have done? Surely accountability lies not with those authorities and their elected members but with the Government.
Mrs. Bottomley: We have made it clear that we hope we shall not have to use charge capping. For many years, local authority citizens have been desperate about their exorbitant rates. It is necessary for Government to intervene. It is not, of course, a first choice and the purpose of the community charge is to have a more direct relationship between the provision of services and payment for them.
Many other hon. Members have made distinguished contributions tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) spoke at length about his authority. We hope to simplify the way in which needs are assessed. I hope that my hon. Friend will take some reassurance from the fact that my Department earlier today discussed the issue of rural deprivation and the Association of District Councils referred to tourist resorts during this week. We are looking at all those questions and our aim is to achieve a simple and fairer system.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to the London situation following on from the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton. We do not need to spell out further the importance of providing effective and efficient services. It is not a good enough excuse to say that London's problems are overwhelming and that nothing can be done. There are great contrasts between the provision of services in different areas. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has often said, efficiency should be the ally and not the enemy of compassion. The needs may be great—and none of us would dispute that—but that is no excuse for not providing for those needs effectively and efficiently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) referred to his local authority as one of the best councils in the land. Some hon. Members may dispute that, but once again he referred to the difficulties of success. As the rateable values have risen, he has gained less grant. The system in future will do away with that. The hon. Members for Leeds, Central and for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) referred to the position in Leeds. It was claimed that Leeds would lose £7·3 million. That is quite wrong. Leeds will save about £12 million a year because the Department of Education and Science is paying for polytechnic education. There will be £5 million extra in net terms from the Government to finance services. If it spends in line with our assumptions, rates need rise no more than 4 per cent.
Mr. Fatchett rose—
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) referred to the situation in Derbyshire. It would be difficult to find a better contrast between the efficient and effective distribution of services and the wasteful and the profligate. His specific, clear and well-documented examples, put humorously, made his point powerfully.
Mr. Matthew Taylor rose—
Mr. Fatchett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order and not a point of argument.
Mr. Fatchett: Is it in order for the Minister to give information in this debate which is inconsistent with a parliamentary reply given on 12 December to which my hon. Friend—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. The Minister must take responsibility for what she says.
Mr. Fatchett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is providing the wrong information.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must take responsibility for what she says.
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) also contributed to the debate. The behaviour of the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) brought a poor name to this House and his philosophy of extremism and disruptive divisiveness also gave a bad name to local government.
I appreciated the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) failed to say that next year Brent will receive £19 million more than this year. It could reduce its rates by 13 per cent. if it spent in line with inflation.
Reform of the grant system will assist accountability. The present RSG distribution is complicated and many hon. Members have complained about the difficulties involved. The basic and fundamental role of local government is to ensure the provision of services locally that are best provided locally. The task is to serve the public wherever it is best served.
The changes facing local government are wide-ranging. They are not an attack on its powers or its rights. The changes are designed to meet a constantly changing pattern of need for services in a constantly changing economic environment.
Sadly, the Opposition will oppose this final rate support grant order. They show few signs of understanding that we are moving from Government control to effective decision-making by local people, backed by local voters and the local councillors whom they elect.
The real choice is a democratic choice; a local choice. Our choice tonight is to grant £1,100 million—9 per cent. More—to local authorities. The House should support it.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 203.

Division No.40]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Alexander, Richard

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Body, Sir Richard

Allason, Rupert

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Amess, David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Amos, Alan

Boswell, Tim

Arbuthnot, James

Bottomley, Peter

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Bowis, John

Ashby, David

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Aspinwall, Jack

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Atkinson, David

Brazier, Julian

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

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

Batiste, Spencer

Browne, John (Winchester)

Bendall, Vivian

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Buck, Sir Antony

Benyon, W.

Burns, Simon

Bevan, David Gilroy

Burt, Alistair

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Butcher, John

576

Butler, Chris

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Butterfill, John

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Key, Robert

Carrington, Matthew

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Cash, William

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Chapman, Sydney

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Chope, Christopher

Knowles, Michael

Churchill, Mr

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Lang, Ian

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Lawrence, Ivan

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Colvin, Michael

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Conway, Derek

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Lightbown, David

Cormack, Patrick

Lilley, Peter

Cran, James

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Critchley, Julian

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Lord, Michael

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

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Day, Stephen

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Devlin, Tim

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Maclean, David

Dorrell, Stephen

McLoughlin, Patrick

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Dover, Den

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Dunn, Bob

Madel, David

Durant, Tony

Malins, Humfrey

Dykes, Hugh

Mans, Keith

Emery, Sir Peter

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Fallon, Michael

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Mates, Michael

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Fishburn, John Dudley

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Fookes, Dame Janet

Mellor, David

Forman, Nigel

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Fox, Sir Marcus

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Mitchell, Sir David

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Moate, Roger

Glyn, Dr Alan

Monro, Sir Hector

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Morrison, Sir Charles

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Moss, Malcolm

Gregory, Conal

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Grylls, Michael

Mudd, David

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Neale, Gerrard

Hampson, Dr Keith

Needham, Richard

Hanley, Jeremy

Nelson, Anthony

Hannam, John

Neubert, Michael

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Harris, David

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Haselhurst, Alan

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hayes, Jerry

Norris, Steve

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hayward, Robert

Page, Richard

Heddle, John

Paice, James

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Patnick, Irvine

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Hind, Kenneth

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Pawsey, James

Holt, Richard

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Porter, David (Waveney)

Howard, Michael

Portillo, Michael

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

Powell, William (Corby)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Raffan, Keith

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Redwood, John

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Renton, Tim

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Rhodes James, Robert

Hunter, Andrew

Riddick, Graham

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Irvine, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion

Irving, Charles

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Jack, Michael

Rowe, Andrew

Jackson, Robert

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Jessel, Toby

Ryder, Richard

577

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Thorne, Neil

Scott, Nicholas

Thornton, Malcolm

Shaw, David (Dover)

Thurnham, Peter

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Shelton, Sir William (Streatham)

Tracey, Richard

Tredinnick, David

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Trippier, David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Trotter, Neville

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shersby, Michael

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Sims, Roger

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Ward, John

Speller, Tony

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Warren, Kenneth

Squire, Robin

Watts, John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wells, Bowen

Steen, Anthony

Whitney, Ray

Stern, Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Stevens, Lewis

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Winterton, Nicholas

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Wood, Timothy

Sumberg, David

Woodcock, Mike

Summerson, Hugo

Yeo, Tim

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory

Temple-Morris, Peter

and Mr. Tom Sackville.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cox, Tom

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Crowther, Stan

Allen, Graham

Cummings, John

Alton, David

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Anderson, Donald

Dalyell, Tam

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Armstrong, Hilary

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Ashton, Joe

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

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Dixon, Don

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Dobson, Frank

Barron, Kevin

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Battle, John

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Beckett, Margaret

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Beith, A. J.

Fatchett, Derek

Bell, Stuart

Faulds, Andrew

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Fearn, Ronald

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

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Bermingham, Gerald

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

Bidwell, Sydney

Flannery, Martin

Blair, Tony

Flynn, Paul

Blunkett, David

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Boateng, Paul

Foster, Derek

Boyes, Roland

Fraser, John

Bradley, Keith

Fyfe, Maria

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Galbraith, Sam

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Galloway, George

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

George, Bruce

Buchan, Norman

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Buckley, George J.

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Caborn, Richard

Golding, Mrs Llin

Callaghan, Jim

Gordon, Mildred

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Gould, Bryan

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Graham, Thomas

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Canavan, Dennis

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Cartwright, John

Grocott, Bruce

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hardy, Peter

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Clay, Bob

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Clelland, David

Haynes, Frank

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Cohen, Harry

Heffer, Eric S.

Coleman, Donald

Henderson, Doug

Corbett, Robin

Hinchliffe, David

Cousins, Jim

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

578

Holland, Stuart

Nellist, Dave

Hood, Jimmy

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

O'Brien, William

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

O'Neill, Martin

Howells, Geraint

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hoyle, Doug

Parry, Robert

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Patchett, Terry

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Pendry, Tom

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Pike, Peter L.

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Illsley, Eric

Prescott, John

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Primarolo, Dawn

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Radice, Giles

Kennedy, Charles

Randall, Stuart

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Lamond, James

Richardson, Jo

Leadbitter, Ted

Robertson, George

Leighton, Ron

Robinson, Geoffrey

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Rogers, Allan

Lewis, Terry

Rooker, Jeff

Litherland, Robert

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Livingstone, Ken

Rowlands, Ted

Livsey, Richard

Ruddock, Joan

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Sedgemore, Brian

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Sheerman, Barry

Loyden, Eddie

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McAllion, John

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

McAvoy, Thomas

Short, Clare

Macdonald, Calum A.

Skinner, Dennis

McFall, John

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

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Snape, Peter

McKelvey, William

Soley, Clive

McLeish, Henry

Spearing, Nigel

McNamara, Kevin

Steel, Rt Hon David

McTaggart, Bob

Stott, Roger

McWilliam, John

Strang, Gavin

Madden, Max

Straw, Jack

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Marek, Dr John

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Turner, Dennis

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Vaz, Keith

Martlew, Eric

Wall, Pat

Maxton, John

Wallace, James

Meacher, Michael

Walley, Joan

Meale, Alan

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Michael, Alun

Wareing, Robert N.

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Mills, Iain

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Winnick, David

Morgan, Rhodri

Wray, Jimmy

Morley, Elliott

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Tellers for the Noes:

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Mr. Frank Cook and

Mowlam, Marjorie

Mr. Ken Eastham.

Mullin, Chris

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant Report (England) 1989–90 (House of Commons Paper No. 75), a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.
It being after Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the order of 13 January, to put forthwith the remaining motions relating to local government finance.

Rate Support Grant

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  Resolved,
  That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) 1989–90 (House of Commons Paper No. 14), a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.—[Mr. Gummer.]
  Resolved,
  That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 2) 1987–88 (House of Commons Paper No. 13), a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.—I Mr. Gummer.]
  Resolved,
  That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 4) 1986–87 (House of Commons Paper No. 12), a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.—[Mr. Gummer]
  Resolved,
  That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 4) 1985–86 (House of Commons Paper No. 11), a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.—[Mr. Gummer.]

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  Statutory Instruments, &c.
    AGRICULTURE
    That the Agriculture Improvement (Variation) (No. 3) Scheme 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 2066), dated 25th November 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.—[Mr. Chapman.]
PETITION

  Sunday Trading
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Frank Cook: I wish to present a petition to the House on behalf of almost 200 of my constituents about Sunday trading. The petition is signed by John O'Gorman of 11 Darlington lane, Ian Menzies of Saltney road, Martin Ball of Elcott road, Norton and several others.
  The petition from residents of Stockton, North sheweth
  That the undersigned are concerned that any future legislation on Sunday trading and commercial activity should uphold the character of Sunday as a shared and special day for the enjoyment of family life, rest, community and worship.
  I am sure that the petition warrants most careful consideration by the House.
  To lie upon the Table.

Manchester (Poverty)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
10.16 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: This is a deeply important debate about the living conditions of the most needful of those whom we on these Benches tonight, as hon. and right hon. Members for Manchester constituencies, have the responsibility and the honour to represent here. The way they now live—and all too often prematurely die—is spelt out with force and eloquence in two recent reports.
The first of these two major social documents is Professor Peter Townsend's report "Inner City Deprivation and Premature Death in Greater Manchester" which demonstrates that, in some of the most deprived parts of the city, the death rate is 63 per cent. above the national average. The second is "Poverty in Manchester—Third Investigation Report" recently published by Manchester city council which, at a time when the Prime Minister sloganises about the importance of keeping families together, shows that some families in the city are now so poor that there are days when they cannot afford to eat.
For that among other reasons, we feel that the Prime Minister herself ought to reply to this debate. She has the two reports and, if she has read them, will know that their implications go beyond the responsibilities of any one Department of State. Their message has to be fully understood by the Government as a whole and we want urgent ministerial initiatives to reduce deprivation in Manchester, especially in the inner city, but also very importantly in the poorer wards of my own Wythenshawe constituency in south Manchester, where poverty matches that in the central areas.
Following precedents the Prime Minister must honour, we want urgently to see her about the two reports and to be accompanied by constituents who are personally affected by the grim facts of life on the poverty line for huge numbers of Manchester families. It is the Prime Minister who is ultimately responsible for having created Britain's growing underclass or jumble-sale clad "girocracy" of people, most of whom, as the two reports show, have to eke out an existence that is becoming ever more nasty, brutish and preventably short.
There is not enough time for me to relate in this debate all of the most disturbing facts revealed in the reports, but some I must give the House. Taking "Poverty in Manchester" first, the survey for which was undertaken by an independent fieldwork agency, the report shows that 32 per cent. of the city's population, some 144,000 people, are living in poverty in Manchester today. The groups in which poverty is disproportionately high include one-parent families, of whom 65 per cent. live in poverty; black and Asian households, 50 per cent.; council tenants, 48 per cent.; and families with someone who is long-term sick or disabled, 40 per cent. Some 55 per cent. of the city's poor are also in debt.
The report analyses the official statistics on unemployment—Manchester has over twice the national rate—low pay, taxation and benefits. It explodes many of the Government's myths. The report also deals with the impact on Manchester's poor of the huge loss in Government grants to the city over the past ten years, the
582
effect of last April's social security changes, the DSS's deliberate underspending on community care grants and the way in which the poll tax, when it comes into operation, will further increase the living costs of people on low incomes in areas of low rateable value, a high proportion of whom are pensioners who already cannot make ends meet.
To give more details of the report's findings on poverty, which it defines as inability to afford what everyone else sees as the necessities of life, over 30,000 people in Manchester live in homes without essential heating. About 20,000 homes are affected by damp and a further 20,000 include at least one person who lacks a warm waterproof coat, while half the city's population cannot afford to pay for a week's holiday away from home and many thousands do not own more than one pair of shoes.
Over half the households in receipt of social security benefits live in poverty and more than 40 per cent. of them include a long-term sick or disabled person. Among families with children, three quarters go without three necessities. Over 50,000 people in Manchester are worse off because of the change from supplementary benefit to income support and the replacement of grants as of right by the social fund.
Professor Townsend's report spotlights the close correlation which exists between material deprivation and premature death. He shows that the four most deprived wards in the city have the worst health records, judged by, among other factors, the percentage of children of low birth weight. Three of the four wards also have the highest proportion of premature deaths in the city and the highest post-perinatal mortality rates.
In the space of two years, there were nearly 1,500 "excess deaths" in the city due to higher mortality rates in materially deprived wards. In my constituency, the number of people who died in the poorer wards was 169 above the national average last year. They died one by one and publicly unseen, but taken together their deaths total nearly four times the toll in the recent Boeing 737 disaster at Kegworth. By contrast, the death rate in Britain's most affluent communities has fallen in a decade by 26 per cent.
There has been a shifty and puerile attempt to divert attention from the two reports by blaming the local council, which has lost £570 million in grants under the present Government, for poverty in the city. That immense loss, so gravely damaging to the council's ability to help local people, not least the poorest, is itself a major factor in the growth of poverty in Manchester.
Mr. Keith Bradley: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the loss of that grant throughout Manchester—and, as I believe he is about to say, the spread of poverty—now means that we have pockets of abject poverty even in the most affluent parts of Manchester, traditionally seen in my area of Withington? Many people in that area are now suffering in the way that poverty was previously seen only as an inner-city phenomenon.
Mr. Morris: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and warmly admire the persistence with which he has argued that important point to the House month after month. I am sure that he will agree with me that to blame the council for poverty in Manchester, while it may satisfy the politically illiterate, is like blaming the victim for a crime.

583
In Manchester, 17,483 tenants and ratepayers have now lost all their housing benefit under the Government's revised scheme; 100,000 now receive less housing benefit; 44,581 no longer receive help with their water rates; 109,000 of Manchester's children lost a total of £1·98 million by the freezing of child benefit in the last year and 7,000 have been deprived by the Government of free school meals; 50,000 people in the city are worse off due to the replacement of supplementary benefit by income support; and 2,000 16 and 17-year-olds have lost income support.
All of them are victims of this Government's warped social priorities. One of them is Thomas Cook, who is aged 73, a retired engine driver in Manchester whose income is £42·79 a week, and woe betide anyone who tries to tell him that the local council is responsible for his poverty. Christian Wolmas said of him in The Independent:
"What makes a visit to Mr. Cook's home so poignant is the spartan tidiness: the little decaying rectangles of carpet placed neatly around the room, but barely covering a third of the grey lino. One can almost feel Mrs. Thatcher's approval of his efforts to make the best of a difficult job, but her name is not one to mention in his little flat unless you want to be shown the door."
Mr. Cook's wife died of cancer, he has had an operation for cancer, but now has to try to exist on a weekly sum that would not have bought a meal for two at many a table in the Carlton club tonight. Nor would it pay for the week-end diversions of many a lager lout in the more prosperous communities where they wreak their havoc.
Giving more help to the elderly poor, or others in poverty, is not a problem of resources but one of priorities. In last year's Budget alone, £1·9 billion went in tax cuts to the richest 1 per cent. of taxpayers, while many of Manchester's pensioners now complain in the winter months of having to choose between eating and heating, and ministerial advice to them is that salvation lies in the jumble sale.
The grievous severity of job losses over recent years in Manchester, which once made Britain the workshop of the world, has won national attention. Now an independent study of regional economic prospects for the United Kingdom, to which Lord Dean cogently referred in another place last Monday, shows that the outlook is extremely bleak for the north-west. Further huge job losses are forecast and the report of the study says:
"The outlook for the North West is almost wholly depressive. It is forecast to fare worse than any other UK region, suffering the biggest fall in employment, and output growth barely half the national average."
That is the message from Cambridge Econometrics, and we want tonight a statement, which I hope will not be as obtuse as the one given to Lord Dean last Monday, about the daunting further challenge it presents to the people that my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) and for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland), my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), and my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and I represent. We are especially glad to see our hon. Friends the Members for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) and for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) among others who are here with us tonight.
584
I repeat that the resources are there urgently to improve the conditions of life of Manchester's poor and to improve the economic prospects of the conurbation. The Chancellor boasts of the surplus available to him and can well afford the £4 billion cash injection that the TUC is requesting for, among other purposes, help for poorer families and the low-paid; increased child benefits and adequately funded hospitals in areas which know all too well the cost of ward closures; and both better provision for children at school and more housing investment in the public sector.
He most certainly has the funds to alleviate the stark poverty revealed by the two reports about Manchester. The cost to the Chancellor would be trivial of restoring the £4·1 million lost by Manchester's poorest people, compared with 1985–86, by the substitution of the social fund for single payments to meet urgent needs. He can also well afford to close the gap between Manchester's bid for £209 million under the housing investment programme and our allocation of only £17 million.
Ministers must know of the reports that to put right the defects in Manchester's private sector housing would cost £250 million and that to remedy faults in its council properties would cost at least £750 million, which makes the city's HIP allocation of £17 million a calculated insult to those whose homes are in need of renovation or refurbishment or who are homeless in Manchester today. Again, the Government must know that urgent repairs and maintenance to elderly persons' homes and even fire precaution work in children's homes have to be deferred.
As Minister for the Disabled I was always ready to go with any Member of Parliament to see at first hand any local problems of concern to him or her. More to the point, I recall going as a Minister, at his request, with the present Secretary of State for Social Security to his Croydon constituency. That entitles me to ask him now to come with me and my parliamentary colleagues to Manchester to see at first hand the preventable suffering among the poorest of our constituents. I ask him to spend a day or so with the city's social work service so that he can visit and talk to the people it is now seeking to help in circumstances of intimidating difficulty. The Prime Minister said here last May that "everyone" had benefited from increased prosperity. She emphasised the word "everyone".
The Secretary of State will learn in Manchester the reaction to that statement of the poorest of our pensioners, one-parent families and other deprived groups. Hopefully, he will meet Thomas Cook.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend made a valid point about his role as a Minister and about how he cared enough to go to the areas that mattered. In his experience of Governments of both complexions, has my right hon. Friend ever seen, on the face of the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, anything that leads him to believe that they care about the issues we are raising? It is only if they care and want to make the issues their priority that our constituents will benefit from the change in policy.
Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend was extremely kind to refer to my practice as a Minister of going to constituencies to meet needful people at the request of the Members of Parliament concerned if they wished me to do so. We have to judge people by their actions. We must make our assessment of them by the effect of what they do to people

585
who are the most in need. What I have said is that by that test the Government have a geat deal for which to answer. That is not just my view; it is the view also of the Bishop of Manchester who, in his new year's message, made it pikestaff-plain that poverty and inequalities have increased, are increasing and ought to be diminished.
The message of this debate is that poverty in Manchester has increased, as the Bishop said, is increasing and will go on increasing if the Government refuse to take purposeful action. We demand that such action be taken and insist on urgency. If they refuse, the people of Manchester will draw their own conclusions about the Government's attitude to the widespread deprivation in their city.
10.32 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on securing this debate. I listened with interest to his speech and to the contributions made by his hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). I understand that there are people in Manchester and other parts of the country who are facing real and persistent problems. That is recognised by the Government, contrary to the points made by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, and long-term policies are developed accordingly.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and the hon. Members who intervened have, understandably, concentrated on the darker side of the picture. We should look at the problems they raise in context. I should like to say something about the more encouraging aspects of what is happening in one of our major cities.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lloyd: I have little time because the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe took more than 15 minutes. However, I will give way.
Mr. Kaufman: Will the Minister say what encouragement he can offer to my constituent, Mrs. Jenkins, who wrote to tell me today that, as a result of the Government's changes in social security, she and her husband, who have struggled all their lives to buy their house, are likely to have to give up that house and be homeless because they cannot afford to keep up their payments?
Mr. Lloyd: I should not have given way because, as the right hon. Gentleman knew before he made his intervention, I cannot comment on a particular case without looking at all the facts first. If he really wants to raise that matter with me, he will, perhaps, write to me with the full details. I would appreciate that and I would then look into the matter and answer him.
I shall now look at the more encouraging aspects of the scene in Manchester. The level of unemployment in the Manchester authority district, to which the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe referred, has fallen by more than 17 per cent. between November 1987 and November 1988. Overall, unemployment in Greater Manchester has dropped from 13·2 per cent. to 10·6 per cent. in a year and is still dropping. That is good news for Manchester—
Mr. Tony Lloyd: What about Manchester itself?
Mr. Lloyd: I also referred to the local district authority. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish.
Mr. Ken Eastham: My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) may be able to assist the Minister.
Mr. Lloyd: No, I do not think that he will assist me. I have allowed one intervention—which is more than enough—and it was not a help to the central argument. If the hon. Gentleman has a point, I hope that he will write to me and I shall reply. It is not worth taking up time now on it.
The fall in unemployment is good news. The graph in the city council report, in which I was very interested, shows clearly that the increase in numbers of those on supplementary benefit between 1979 and 1987 was due mainly to the rise in unemployment and unemployment is now falling. There are also 9,500 vacancies on the youth training scheme and 9,000 places on the new employment training scheme to help to ensure that skills are available to continue that expansion.
There have been significant improvements in the health service in the Manchester area. Salford district health authority, for example, has seen a growth in spending of 11·5 per cent.
Mr. Eastham: Salford is not the same as Manchester.
Mr. Lloyd: The corresponding increase for central Manchester is 10·4 per cent. and other health authorities in the area have also shown increases.
However, it is not just the policies of central Government that have an impact on the poor people in Manchester. Manchester city council also has a role to play. I welcome the fact that the council is participating in the Government's Estates Action initiative aimed at improving housing conditions in—and the management of—unpopular housing estates. However, I understand that Manchester city council has been slow in submitting schemes that would take advantage of Estates Action resources. In 1988–89, the council received £2·7 million for two new schemes and it has been told that there is a further £1·2 million available, mostly to refurbish empty dwellings for the homeless. The council has so far not taken advantage of those resources even though it owns some 5,000 empty houses and flats. I hope that it will soon.
There have been references to particular cases. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) mentioned one in an intervention. I shall not attempt to comment on them here because it would be wrong to do so without studying the full facts. If any hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me about any particular case that he would have used to illustrate this debate, or which has been used already, I shall, of course, look into it as closely as I can. However, I shall comment now on the charge that the social security system is not meeting the needs of the poorest in the city.
First, I must repeat what I have said many times, which is that there is no absolute poverty line. To use the supplementary benefit or income support levels is clearly not tenable. That would mean that when the Government raise benefit levels, there would be more poor people. The approach adopted in the city council's report is not much

587
better. Measuring deprivation inevitably involves subjective judgments and that is what has happened there. However, there is not enough time to enter into a technical debate about how we define poverty.
Mr. Eastham: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lloyd: No, because I have little time and I have some important points to make.
The main point that I want to make is that, inevitably, the report is out of date. It covers the situation in 1987, before the social security reforms were introduced last April. The report acknowledges that, and goes on to speculate about how the changes affect Mancunians on income support and family credit. We shall not have the definitive figures for income support until next summer. Under this Government pensioners have experienced a rise in average income of 23 per cent., and it was plain from the table in the city council's report that the number of elderly people on supplementary benefit was not increasing. Under income support—the benefit paid to the poorest—pensioners receive an age-related premium and we have already announced that those premiums will be restructured.
From this October we are to introduce enhanced premiums for those of 75 or over and for disabled pensioners. In a full year, that will cost almost £200 million and benefit 2·6 million pensioners who get income support or housing benefit. It will help those categories of people who have had the least opportunity to make extra provision for themselves.
Hon. Members have mentioned the difficulties facing families. Their criticisms take no account of the increased generosity of the family credit scheme, which means that a couple with two children can receive benefit if they have gross earnings of £142 a week, which will increase to £154 from April.
Mr. Eastham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We thought that this debate would deal with poverty in Manchester. Would you, Sir, ask the Minister at least to attempt to reply to my right hon. Friend—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. As the hon. Gentleman has just said, he wants the Minister to answer the questions, so it is a matter for the Minister.
Mr. Lloyd: The increasing number of jobs in Manchester means that that innovation by the Government will help a substantial number of families in the city. Those who are still looking for work and rely on income support will get extra help this April from the 50p additions to the allowances for children, at a cost of £70 million to the taxpayer.
We should remember, too, that the city centre in Manchester is now recognised to be the country's second largest financial centre. There are branches and regional offices of all the major clearing banks, eight merchant banks and 30 overseas or international banks. It was of Manchester city centre that the Financial Times said:
"in the last two years a major transformation has been taking place in Manchester's financial and professional community."
588
The area also has the largest campus in western Europe, covering the university of Manchester, UMIST—the university of Manchester institute of science and technology—Manchester business school, Manchester polytechnic and the university of Salford. All these bring jobs, resources and investment into Manchester, thus benefiting the entire community. It is a shame that Opposition Members do not understand that. It shows that they do not understand the long-term solutions to the problems of which they rightly complain and with which I sympathise.
What is more, Manchester has impressed the rest of the country so much that it will be the British representative challenging to hold the 1996 Olympic games. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport was happy to approve the expenditure of £10 million to start a second international terminal at Manchester airport, which will also have a new rail link. All those factors contribute to the expansion of the local economy.
I repeat that right hon. and hon. Members have drawn attention to real problems in Manchester and I do not want to minimise their importance. However, they may also inadvertently have suggested that there have been no improvements in the circumstances of the people in that city and that the future is grim. I hope that I have shown that the Government's policies are proving effective and that there is a brighter side to the coin. I am sure that the House will recognise that Manchester is an increasingly thriving city, showing again the enterprise and industry for which the north-west is famous.
Mr. Eastham: As I understand it, this is a 30-minute debate and two minutes remain, so I shall take up one or two points in the Minister's reply. We are absolutely appalled at his response. We do not feel that he has responded in any way to the charges made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on the issue of poverty. My right hon. Friend referred to people going without food. That has nothing to do with the airport. We are talking about human beings and about misery and suffering.
I should like to underline one of the points made by my right hon. Friend. My daughter is a teacher in an inner-city school. In April she had the agonising job of having to tell children living in deep poverty that they no longer qualified for free school meals when 7,000 children ceased to qualify for school meals as a result of the Government's legislation. Those are the issues to which we should be addressing ourselves tonight. We are talking about hardship and suffering—about people going without food and fuel.
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman has referred to free school meals, and I would be grateful to him if he would write to me and make the point more clearly than he has here. My reason for that is that free school meals are available for those families on income support. For those who are not on income support, but earn low wages, there is family credit, which contains an amount to cover the free school meals that used to be available on family income supplement.
Mr. Eastham: Seven thousand fewer.
Mr. Lloyd: There may be 7,000 fewer, but there are other reasons for that. They may be above the level of income support, because the number on income support has declined and the number in employment has increased.
The Motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Conference on Security and Co-operation
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report the finally agreed text of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe in Vienna; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Vienna concluding document will be published as a White Paper, as will my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary's speech at the concluding session of the Vienna CSCE meeting.

  In the meantime, copies of both the document and the speech will be placed in the Library of the House and issued to members of the public on request.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweath Affairs if he will make a statement on the terms of the concluding document of the Vienna CSCE review conference.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to him on 11 January, at column 830. The Vienna concluding document contains greatly improved commitments on human rights and contacts, including an important new mechanism for the regular review of human rights abuses, and provides for increased co-operation in economic, scientific, environmental, information, cultural and educational fields. It contains a substantial programme of follow up activities including an information forum in London in April/May 1989 and opens the way to negotiations in March on conventional arms control and confidence and security building measures.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government still consider, as indicated to the House on 23 October 1987, that the 1986 United Nations plan for a binational federal Government of Cyprus in which the two communities share power as equal political partners forms a good basis for settlement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We continue to believe that the United Nations Secretary-General's draft framework agreement of March 1986 formed a good basis for a Cyprus settlement. But events have moved on. The leaders of the two communities, President Vassiliou and Mr. Denktash, accepted the Secretary-General's proposal last August that, without any pre-conditions, they should make a fresh attempt to negotiate a comprehensive settlement by 1 June 1989. Their talks continue, with the aim of agreeing the basis for a settlement in present circumstances. We have encouraged each side to negotiate constructively, taking the basic concerns of the other fully into account.

  Iran
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of executions in Iran in the last three months: and if he will list them.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have received regular press releases and reports of political executions from a variety of sources including Amnesty International.

  We have also received reporting on this subject from our mission in Tehran.

  We examine all such reports with great care.

  Turkey
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the Turkish Government concerning improvements in human rights in Turkey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State raised the subject of human rights with the Turkish ambassador on 12 December 1988. We continue to urge the Turkish Government to maintain the improvement in human rights there has been in recent years and to respect and abide by the terms of the relevant international human rights conventions to which Turkey is a signatory.

  Foreign Compensation (China)
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in implementing the Foreign Compensation (People's Republic of China) Order 1987.

  Mr. Eggar
  Very good progress is being made. 2,032 claims in respect of bonds and 989 claims in respect of property had been received by the Foreign Compensation Commission (which is being assisted with regard to the administrative aspects of the work by the private accountants Ernst and Whinney) by the two deadlines of 30 June and 31 August 1988 laid down in the 1987 order. Of these, 1,488 claims in respect of bonds and seven in respect of property had been determined by the commission by 13 January.

  Adjudication of property claims takes time. The issues raised by many claims are complex. It is hoped, however, that the final distribution from the China fund cart be made by late 1990.

  In the meantime, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has directed that an interim payment of 5 per cent. of the value assigned to a bond should be paid to successful claimants in respect of bonds as from the end of January.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. French
  To ask the Member answering for the Public Accounts Commission how many oral parliamentary questions he has answered by written reply because the question was not reached at Question Time, for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Sir Peter Hordern
  None, during 1988.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. French
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many oral parliamentary questions he has answered by written reply because the question was not reached at Question Time, for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Twenty two, during 1988. Fifteen of which I answered on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Departmental Job Dispersal
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to move jobs in his Department to locations in the Nottingham, North constituency; and if he will make it his policy to inform the hon. Member for Nottingham, North of any developments.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  For our plans for relocating some work from sone London local social security offices I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) on 16 January, at columns 44–45.

  A team of officials are considering options for moving some headquarters work out of London and are investigating all possible locations which will allow us to improve efficiency. We shall make a full announcement of our conclusions in due course.

  Maintenance Orders
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the arrangements for diversion of maintenance orders for women receiving income support are still as described in paragraphs 13.20–22, "Supplementary Benefits Handbook 1984."

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The arrangements are generally the same. There is a slight change in that claimants are no longer invited to arrange for the court to pass their court order payments to the Department, rather than direct to them, where the order is paid with complete regularity.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Blyth Valley had their unemployment benefit stopped because they were considered not to be available for work in January 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that information is not available in the form requested. Statistics on adjudication officers' decisions are compiled quarterly for the areas covered by adjudication offices, each of which cover a number of benefit offices. For the quarter ended 31 March 1988, the records for the adjudication office area of Newcastle, which includes the constituency of Blyth Valley, show that 246 adverse decisions on availability for work were given.

  Mr. S. W. Brass
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when his Department's Central Office at 258
  Longbarton, Newcastle, will provide the information requested by Mr. S. W. Brass of 58 Sandy lane, Rugeley, Staffordshire, on behalf of Mrs. D. E. Brass regarding non-receipt of her retirement pension for the weeks commencing 7 and 14 November, Reference 02707276 ZT.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Non-payment of retirement pension in respect of Mrs. Brass for the weeks commencing 7 and 14 November 1988 has now been confirmed and immediate payment of the amount due will be made by the Cannock local office.

  Children (Access Visits)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what guidance is issued to local offices on payment of fares to a parent who is seeking to make an access visit to his or her child;

  (2) whether financial help is available to a mother who has to travel long distances for an access visit to her child in order to comply with a custody order;

  (3) what help is available to parents seeking help with transport costs in order to pay access visits to their children.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A community care grant from the social fund may be awarded to a parent receiving income support to cover travelling costs to visit a child who is in the care of the other parent pending a custody decision. Once custody has been decided help can not be given.

  Guidance and directions for the award of such payments appear in the "Social Fund Manual". A copy is in the Library.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Public Expenditure White Paper
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish the 1989 public expenditure White Paper.

  Mr. Major
  The 1989 public expenditure White Paper will be published at 3.30 pm on Monday 30 January, and copies will be made available in the Vote Office.

  West German Minister
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met his West German counterpart; and what was the content of their discussions.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor meets his counterparts in other countries from time to time to discuss a range of issues of mutual interest.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  Bank base rates are 13 per cent.

  Crown Estate Commissioners
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what matters were discussed when the Crown Estate Commissioners met him to present their annual report.
  259
  Mr. Lawson
  I met the commissioners on 13 July 1988. We discussed the performance of the Crown Estate in 1987–88 and their broad programme for the future years.I regret that I cannot disclose the specific issues discussed as they are subject to commercial confidentiality.

  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to how many households have their mortgage interest payments adjusted annually.

  Mr. Lilley
  Figures released by the Building Societies Association in July 1988 showed that 37 per cent. of borrowers with the largest 14 building societies had their mortgage payments adjusted once a year. No information is available for banks and other mortgage lenders.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of(a) self employment and (b) part-time employment in the United Kingdom since 1979.

  Mr. Major
  Between June 1979 and September 1988 the number of self-employed people in Great Britain rose by 60 per cent. to nearly 3 million. Over the same period, the part-time workforce in employment rose by 30 per cent. to over 6 million.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which regions adult unemployment has fallen over the past year.

  Mr. Major
  Adult unemployment has fallen in every region of the United Kingdom over the last year, and fastest in the west midlands, the north-west and Wales.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the fall in the number of long-term unemployed aged 18 to 24 years since October 1986.

  Mr. Major
  The latest available figures for October 1988 show that the number of long-term unemployed aged between 18 and 24 has fallen by one half since October 1986.

  Private Shareholders
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the number of private shareholders in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The joint Treasury and stock exchange survey carried out in January and February 1988 estimated that approximately 9 million people own shares, 20 per cent. of the adult population. This represents a threefold increase since 1979.

  Anti-Dumping Duties
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much in anti-dumping duties on electronic typewriters was collected by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) how much in anti-dumping duties on daisy wheel printers was collected by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in the last year for which figures are available;
  260
  (3) how much in anti-dumping duties on dot matrix printers was collected by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in the last year for which figures are available;

  (4) how much in anti-dumping duties on photocopiers was collected by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in the last year for which figures are available;

  (5) how much in anti-dumping duties on microchips was collected by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]The following information is in respect of duty collected in the 12 months to November 1988:

  Category

  Anti-dumping duty (£000's)

  Electronic typewriters

  238

  Daisy wheel printers and dot matrix printers1

  140

  Photocopiers

  5,186

  Microchips

  2

  1 Separate figures for daisy wheel and dot matrix printers are not available. Anti-dumping duty was imposed on dot matrix printers in May 1988 and on daisy wheel printers in July 1988.

  2 Anti-dumping duty is not levied on microchips.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Land Registration
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will investigate the reasons for the delay regarding registration No. WSX 131547; and when the district land registrar of Her Majesty's Land Registry, Weymouth, will conclude this matter.

  The Attorney-General
  The registration of title number WSX131547 was completed on 6 January 1989. Completion of the registration was delayed because replies to requisitions raised by the Land Registry in respect of prior applications, which affected the land in title number WSX131547, had not been received.

  Latent Damage Act
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has any plans to monitor the working of the Latent Damage Act; and if he will make a statement upon the aspect of deliberate concealment.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor has no plans to do so at present since it is too early to say whether such an exercise is necessary.

  The Latent Damage Act 1986 provides that the overriding time limit of 15 years in an action for negligence is not to apply where there has been deliberate concealment of any fact by the defendant. A defendant will therefore not be able to take advantage of his own wrongdoing by relying on the lapse of time.

  Freehold
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Attorney-General when he plans to introduce legislation embodying the Law Commission working group's recommendations contained in "Commonhold Freehold Flats and Freehold Ownership of Other Independent Buildings"; and if he will make a statement on the position of existing flat leaseholders' rights to conversion to any such common-hold system.
  261
  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor announced on 8 June 1988 that the Government have arranged for legislation to be prepared at the Law Commission giving effect to the recommendations made in the working group report (Cm. 179).

  Decisions on the implementation of the recommendations, and the circumstances in which leaseholds of flats should be convertable into freeholds within commonholds are being considered and will be announced in due course.

PRIME MINISTER

  Space Debris
  Q53. Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will take steps to mount a space mission to investigate the extent of space debris in the earth's orbit.

  The Prime Minister
  This is an area in which it is natural to work through the European Space Agency and where the United Kingdom and other member states are due shortly to consider a working party report. There are, however, no immediate United Kingdom or ESA plans for a space mission to study space debris.

  Newport, Gwent
  Mr. Flynn
  to ask the Prime Minister if she intends to pay an official visit to the Duffryn area of Newport, Gwent.

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

  Cabinet Ministers (Share Dealings)
  Mr. Roberts
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the guidelines for Cabinet Ministers' dealings in shares.

  The Prime Minister
  A memorandum by the then secretary of the Cabinet, which included the guidance given to Ministers on this matter, was submitted in evidence to the Royal Commission on standards of conduct in public life in 1975. A copy is in the Library. The current guidance is to all intents and purposes the same and continues to be based on the principle that Ministers must so order their affairs that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their private interests and their public duties.

  Engagements
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 January.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 January.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 January.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 January.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 January.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 January.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 January.
  262
  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Premier of Quebec.

  Government Legal Services
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Prime Minister whether Sir Robert Andrew's report of his review of the Government legal services is to be published; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Last year I asked Sir Robert Andrew to undertake a review of Government legal services and to make recommendations on what legal services the Government need, how they can be provided most effectively and economically and what changes are needed in the management of legal staff so as to make best use of them. Sir Robert's report is being published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. I am grateful to Sir Robert Andrew for the work he has put into the report.

  Sir Robert Andrew concludes that the Government continue to need a wide range of legal services provided to a high standard and that the need for them is likely to go on increasing. He considers it likely that the bulk of these services will continue to be provided within Government, but Departments should decide on cost-effectiveness grounds whether to meet their needs in Government or outside. He suggests that some of the bodies providing services of a legal nature to the public might usefully become executive agencies and that the relocation of some work out of London should prove cost-effective. The Government accept these conclusions.

  The report proposes some adjustments in organisation to improve the effectiveness of legal services. In the light of these recommendations, I have decided to make the following changes in England and Wales. Under the ministerial direction of the Attorney-General, the Treasury Solicitor will become the head of the Government legal service. As head of profession he will advise on the personnel management of lawyers across Departments, and will be supported in this by a new lawyers management unit. The present Law Officers Department will be renamed the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, and the legal departments for which the Attorney-General is the ministerial head (the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, the Crown Prosecution Service, and the Serious Fraud Office) will be known collectively as the Law Officers Departments. The Lord Chancellor's Department will take over responsibi-lity for the Statutory Publications Office from the Treasury Solicitor's Department, probably in April 1990.

  The report makes a number of recommendations aimed at improving the management of lawyers. The Government accept these recommendations and agree that greater effort needs to be put into recruitment and that the areas of recruitment should be broadened. They believe that the Government legal service as a whole will benefit from more co-ordinated personnel management and from improved training and career management. The new lawyers management unit will have a key role in helping the Treasury Solicitor as head of profession work with Departments in implementing the report's recommendations.
  263
  Sir Robert. Andrew also makes a number of recommendations to improve the pay of lawyers. The Government welcome his emphasis on the need for selectivity in considering special pay treatment for lawyers, which is consistent with the Government's policies on pay. The report also recognises the Government's comparatively greater difficulties of recruiting and retaining lawyers in London, which have already led to the establishment of special London pay scales for lawyers at grades 6 and 7 from April 1988.

  Lawyers at grades 2 and 3 form part of the senior open structure, whose pay is decided by the Government on the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body. The Government are consulting the TSRB about the recommendations which affect these grades and will respond to this part of the report when they have received the TSRB's views.

  Subject to consultations with the unions, the Government propose to respond to the recommendations of the pay of grades below the senior open structure as follows.

  Around £2,500 a year will be added to the pay of all lawyers in grades 4 and 5 working in London. For grade 5 this will take the form of two points on the pay scale. Staff at grade 4 will receive a £2,500 allowance.

  In addition, it is proposed that up to three points on the scale should be made available as personal pay points for certain grade 5 lawyers selected on the basis of their skills, experience, marketability and value to the Department. Broadly similar treatment will be applied to grade 4.

  The Government regard it as important that all at grade 5 should be eligible for performance pay. For lawyers (including those in London) without personal pay points, up to four performance points will continue to be available. For those on the highest personal point, it is proposed that two should be available.

  Lawyers in grades 5 to 7 are covered by the long-term pay agreement of July 1988, under which these grades will receive pay increases of 4 per cent. from 1 April 1989 and a further review from 1 August 1989 informed by a survey of pay levels in the private sector.

  The Government do not propose to make personal pay points available at grades 6 and 7. But grade 6 lawyers in London will receive an additional scale point, worth around £1,100.

  It is proposed to make these changes to pay in response to Sir Robert Andrew's recommendations from 1 April 1989.

THE ARTS

  Museums Training
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what developments there have been on museums training following his statement on 17 March 1988.

  Mr. Luce
  In my statement of 17 March 1988 I welcomed the Museums and Galleries Commission working party report on museums training and career structure, which was published in July 1987.

  I was pleased to announce that my Department, with the MSC, was providing support and financial assistance for a museums skills needs assessment study to identify key skills and competencies. This study, for which the principal agent is the Museums Association, is now almost
  264
  completed and will result in the production of new modules for the training of those currently or prospectively working in museums.

  In my 17 March statement I said that it was not my intention to set up a Museums Training Council with regional panels in the form recommended by the MGC report. I considered it appropriate that the primary responsibility for museums training should rest with the museums industry itself, and that the continuing developments in this area should be overseen and guided by a consortium representing the main sectors of the museums industry. I indicated that I would be consulting further about the composition of such a consortium.

  I am pleased to announce that discussions with interested parties, including the representatives of museums interests on the steering committee for the training needs assessment study, have resulted in a proposal that the Museums Association should establish a museums training institute, which would be a subsidiary charitable company of the association. The museums training institute would be responsible for forming a view on the museum industry's training needs, identifying standards for occupations in the industry, reviewing the content and delivery of training, promoting the provision of training, providing training in selected areas and validating training courses. It is the intention that the board of the institute will consist of an independent chairman, members representing the Museums Association, the national, local authority and independent museums, the Museums and Galleries Commission, the area museum councils, and a number of independent members.

  If this proposal is to be developed, as I hope it will be, it is important that the interested parties, including the museums industry and museums organisations, work together to ensure its success. The Office of Arts and Libraries will be contributing £25,000 towards the initial start-up costs of the museums training institute, and towards the preparation of a business plan. Looking beyond the information of the institute, I am prepared to provide limited funding on a pump-priming basis for a period of up to five years. I shall look to the museums industry and employers to contribute a progressively increasing share of the costs of the institute following the substantial public investment in the development of museums training by the Office of Arts and Libraries and the Training Agency.

  In the past 18 months considerable progress has been made in the development of museum training. The analysis of key skills and competencies has provided a sound basis for further progress and I shall continue to take a close interest in progress towards the establishment of a lead industry body for the museums sector which will carry forward and develop these initiatives.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Disbursements)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service, pursuant to his reply of 10 January,Official Report, column 482, where information relating to the £209,756 of disbursements made by his Department to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1987–88 is to be found; and in what form.
  265
  Mr. Luce
  I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 7 November 1988, at column 40.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is his policy on the education of under-fives; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has any plans for earmarked grants for the development of education for the under-fives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has no plans affecting the funding arrangements for the education of the under-fives. The Government will make a full statement of its policies on the education of the under-fives when responding to the report of the Education, Science and Arts Committee on educational provision for the under-fives, published on 11 January.

  Expenditure (Late Claims)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) pursuant to his reply of 10 January,Official Report, column 483, to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, how late claims for 1987–88 expenditure by local education authorities are treated in relation to the allocations of grant expenditure between local education authorities for the current year; whether the allocations for the current year were set in the light of expected late claims by some authorities; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) pursuant to his reply of 10 January, Official Report, column 483, to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, if he will publish a list of the late claims for 1987–88 made to date by local education authorities, showing the amount claimed by each authority; what further information is available to his Department about any other outstanding claims for that year; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) when 1988–89 allocations under the local education authority training grants scheme were determined; what steps were taken to provide carry forward arrangements to compensate individual authorities for any failure to claim money under the scheme in 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Claims submitted to date in the current financial year, which were due in the 1987–88 financial year, are as follows:

  Local Education Authority

  Amount £

  Claim for Quarter1

  Barnet

  358,880

  2

  Barnsley

  66,134

  2

  Barnsley

  205,430

  3

  Croydon

  159,675

  3

  Ealing

  120,400

  1

  Ealing

  121,800

  2

  Ealing

  176,900

  3

  Hertfordshire

  658,466

  3

  Salford

  250,537

  3

  Waltham Forest

  134,670

  3

  Wiltshire

  222,940

  2

  Wiltshire

  359,805

  3

  266
  1 Claims to cover estimated expenditure were due on the following dates:

  Quarter 1 1 June 1987

  Quarter 2 1 September 1987

  Quarter 3 1 December 1987

  In addition, Barnet, Harrow and Hillingdon LEAs did not submit separate claims for one or more of these quarters and Liverpool LEA has not yet submitted a claim for the third quarter.

  Authorities were asked to make provisional end of year claims for expenditure incurred in 1987–88 as soon as possible after the end of the financial year. The following authorities have not yet done so:
  Dorset, Liverpool, Sunderland and Waltham Forest.

  The maximum amounts of expenditure in 1988–89 which would be grant-aided under the local education authority training grants scheme were notified provisionally to authorities in August 1987 and confirmed in December 1987. These amounts were based on proposals made by authorities and relative pupil and student numbers. They took no account of lateness of claims as eligible claims for 1987–88 will continue to be met from authorities' allocations for that year even when submitted late.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give details of the end year flexibility scheme for his Department's 1987–88 cash limits, showing(a) eligible expenditure, (b) maximum carry-forward and (c) actual carry-forward in each case.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 21 July 1988, at columns 725–28, to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). The increases in provision for 1988–89 arising from capital underspend in 1987–88, allowed under the end-year flexibility scheme, were £2·180 million on class XII, vote 1, where the eligible expenditure was £43·606 million; and £0·370 million on class XII, vote 3, where the eligible expenditure was £153·640 million. In each case the carry-forward was the maximum permitted under the end-year flexibility scheme.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give details of 1987–88 underspending of his Department's 1987–88 cash limits for items in class XII, vote 1, which were outside the end of year flexibility scheme showing(a) expenditure authorised in the Vote and (b) the amount underspent in each case and of the adjustments that have been made to expenditure plans for later years to compensate for the underspending in 1987–88.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The cash limit for class XII, vote 1 in 1987–88 was £378·9 million. Expenditure was £348·5 million. Of the total underspend of £30·4 million, £25·6 million was accounted for by the level of claims for the LEA training grant scheme and £1·8 million by the level of claims for education support grants. The remaining underspend arose from a variety of causes across the Vote. The level of provision for the LEA training grant scheme and for education support grants in 1988–89 has been set to allow for claims arising in respect of earlier years.

  Halls of Residence
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what arrangements the University Grants Committee is making to continue to meet the rating bills of halls of residence of universities in England, Wales and Scotland for the financial year 1989–90; and what representations he is making to the University Grants Committee to ensure that it does not cease to meet the costs of commercial rates in Scottish halls of residence while halls in England and Wales receive monies to cover their rates;

  (2) if he will meet representatives of local authorities to discuss the impact on their revenues of any reduction in tourism arising out of the withdrawal of university halls of residence from commercial letting as a result of University Grants Committee funding changes accompanying the introduction of the community charge:

  (3) what calculation he has made of the impact on tourism of the possible withdrawal of university halls of residence from commercial letting as a result of any reduction in University Grants Committee funding of the commercial rates paid by halls to local authorities;

  (4) if he will meet representatives of local authorities to discuss the impact on their revenues of any reduction in tourism arising out of the withdrawal of university halls of residence from commercial letting as a result of University Grants Committee funding changes accompanying the introduction of the community charge.

  Mr. Jackson
  Rates paid in respect of university halls of residence are not currently reimbursed by the University Grants Committee. A decision by the Universities Funding Council not to reimburse the cost of business rates payable, after the introduction of the community charge, in respect of halls of residence used for commercial letting would effectively maintain the present position and therefore should not affect the commercial letting of university halls of residence or have an adverse impact on tourism or revenue received by local authorities.

  Open University
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has discussed with officials of the Open university the impact of the under supplementation against inflation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  An additional £12·9 million is being made available to the Open university over the next three years. Recurrent grant for 1989 of £68·4 million is over 7 per cent. higher than in 1988. Decisions on grant take full account of advice received from the Open university visiting committee, and of regular discussions with officers of the university.

WALES

  Wrexham Water Works Company
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the Wrexham Water Works Company is above or below the £30 million assets line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The total assets less current liabilities given in the company's annual report for 1987 as £5,528,000

  Community Care
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he now proposes to implement the recommendation of the Griffiths report on community care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  This report relates explicitly to England. My right hon. Friend is considering its implications for services in Wales, in the light of our separate strategies and initiatives to promote the development of effective community care. He will bring forward proposals as soon as possible.

  EC Free Food Scheme
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the total amount of(a) butter and (b) beef allocated to each county in Wales under the European Community free food scheme for 1988–89;

  (2) what is the total amount of (a) butter and ( b) beef distributed in each county in Wales under the European Community free food scheme for 1988–89 to date;

  (3) how much (a) butter and (b) beef was allocated to Wales under the European Community free food scheme for 1988–89; and how much is undistributed at present.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In Wales 176 tonnes of butter and 332 tonnes of beef were allocated to and distributed by designated organisations under the EC free food scheme in 1988. Figures are not available on a county basis. Local distribution arrangements were a matter for the designated organisations to determine within the rules of the scheme. Consultations on the scheme for 1989 will take place soon.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales from whom applications have been received in each county in Wales to distribute beef and butter in the 1988–89 free food scheme; and which of the applications have been granted.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  All nine organisations which applied for designation under the EC free food scheme in Wales had their applications accepted. A list of the organisations was placed in the Library of the House on 21 April 1988 by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Water Act 1973
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of orders made by him and his predecessors under section 29 of the Water Act 1973 requiring the Welsh water authority to seek a specified rate of return on its net assets, giving the date of each such order, and the date of return specified in that order.

  Mr. Grist
  The orders made under section 29 of the Water Act 1973 are as follows:

  Statutory Instrument Number

  Effective dates

  Rate of return per cent.

  1981/826

  6 July 1981 to 31 March 1982

  0·30

  1982/1087

  31 August 1982 to 31 March 1983

  0·95

  1983/782

  13 July 1983 to 31 March 1984

  1·20

  1984/1470

  24 October 1984 to 31 March 1985

  1·25

  1985/78

  1 April 1985 to 31 March 1986

  1·45

  1985/1805

  1 April 1986 to 31 March 1987

  1·65

  1986/1952

  1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988

  1·95

  1987/2022

  1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989

  2·35

  269
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions since 31 March 1978 his Department made a charges option order under the provisions of section 19 of the Water Act 1973, giving the date of any such order and the location to which it applied.

  Mr. Grist
  None. The section has been replaced by section 62 of the Land Drainage Act 1976.

  Breast Cancer Screening
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioners have facilities for screening for breast cancer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  In view of the specialised mammography equipment and radiological expertise required, breast screening in Wales is to be carried out by specialist units and not individual general practitioners.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Disasters (Emergency Funds)
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give a breakdown of the amount diverted from the Government's overseas aid budget to provide emergency funds to the following countries in the wake of recent disasters(a) the Sudan, (b) Bangladesh, (c) Nicaragua, and other Latin American countries affected by Hurricane Joan, (d) Jamaica and (e) Mexico.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The funds provided for these recent disasters were allocated from contingency provision within the overseas aid budget; none of the money was diverted from planned aid programme expenditure.

  The amounts spent on emergency relief in the countries named in 1988–89 have been:

  £ million

  (a) Sudan (floods, refugees etc)

  12·4

  (b) Bangladesh (floods)

  2·5

  (c) Nicaragua and Costa Rica (hurricane)

  0·27

  (d) Jamaica (hurricane)

  0·55

  (e) Mexico (hurricane)

  0·015

  Aid Statistics
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will set a timetable by which they will attain the United Nations recommendation that donor countries' aid to the Third world should constitute 0·7 per cent. of gross national product.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Like previous administrations, Her Majesty's Government are not able to set a timetable for attaining this target. Progress towards the target depends on developments in the economy and other claims on resources. We have a substantial aid programme which is now growing in real terms.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the estimated amounts of(a) principal and (b) interest due to be remitted to the Government by overseas aid debtor
  270
  countries in 1989–90; and what were the amounts actually remitted for the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In 1989–90, repayments of past aid loans due to Her Majesty's Government amount to £63,148,015 (principal) and £11,424,790 (interest). Actual receipts for the latest three financial years for which figures are available are:

  Principal £

  Interest £

  1987–88

  53,121,271

  9,463,464

  1986–87

  53,349,990

  10,247,424

  1985–86

  56,077,690

  11,139,158

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the planned overseas aid budget of £1,430 million in 1989–90 includes or excludes the estimated amounts of(a) principal and (b) interest due to be remitted to the Government by overseas aid debtor countries in that year.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The planned overseas aid budget of £1,430 million in 1989–90 excludes any principal repayment or interest payment due to Her Majesty's Government from past aid loans in that year.

  South Africa
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much assistance has been granted by the EEC to the Church organisations in South Africa that have been subject to recent bomb and arson attacks; and what form this assistance has taken.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The European Community has channelled some 22 mecu (over £14 million) through the South African Council of Churches and the South African Catholic Bishops Conference (SACBC) under the special programme of assistance for victims of apartheid which began in 1986. The United Kingdom's share of this total amounts to some £3 million. The EC programme has financed 70 separate projects implemented by many non-governmental organisations throughout South Africa. The EC has also approved projects to help replace some of the SACBC equipment destroyed, and to help provide new accommodation and facilities for a number of affected organisations, including Church groups.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much assistance has been given by Her Majesty's Government to the Church organisations in South Africa that have been subject to recent bomb and arson attacks; and what form this assistance has taken.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Britain's contribution to the needs of the Church organisations in question has been through the share we contribute to the European Community's programme. In addition Britain has provided modest assistance to replace equipment for some of the other organisations based in the same buildings.

  India (Water Project)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid is being
  271
  provided to India for drilling rigs for the Indian Government's water project; and how much aid the Indian Government requested to finance the original programme.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We were discussing with the Indian authorities finance for a water drilling project costing about £25 million. Unfortunately the project did not pass our appraisal, designed to ensure that it was likely to achieve sustainable benefits. We are considering alternative approaches with the Government of India.

  Brazilian Rain Forests
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the United Kingdom is giving to international efforts to halt the destruction of Brazilian rain forests; and what information he has on their effectiveness.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We are among those who have raised this issue with the Government of Brazil. There have been reports that President Sarney is to seek international assistance on environmental matters; if these are correct. that would be a welcome development. The World bank already has under discussion a loan of up to ․150 million to strengthen the Brazilian Government's national environmental programme. Environmental conditions attached to earlier World Bank and Inter-American Development bank loans have helped to increase awareness of the issues. As signatories of the international tropical timber agreement, both Brazil and the United Kingdom are pledged to encourage the development of international policies aimed at sustainable utilisation and conservation of tropical forests.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Speeding Offences
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many speeding offences in which no other offence was alleged were proceeded against either by fixed penalties or through the courts by the Lincolnshire police in each of the last five years for which statistics are available; and what was the average for England and Wales in these years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information on all speeding offences dealt with by court proceedings or fixed penalty notices is published annually by police force area in "Offences relating to motor vehicles, England and Wales, Supplementary tables" (tables 16 and 20 of the issue for 1987); copies are in the Library. Information on how many of these offences were the only ones alleged on a particular occasion is not available. However, Home Office guidelines are that a fixed penalty notice should not be issued where an officer is also reporting other offences for consideration of summons, and it is believed that in the vast majority of cases a prosecution for speeding is not accompanied by a prosecution for another offence.

  Prison Construction
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is(a) the original agreed contract price and (b) the current contract price for each of the new prisons under construction.
  272
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Construction contracts ar awarded on the basis of an accepted tender price excludin variations of price (VOP). The contract value (which is th current contract price) is adjusted during the course of th:ontract to take account of VOP. VOP is calculated fro the NEDO (National Economic Developmen Organisation) formula which is a nationally recognise formula for the calculation of cost increases for project under construction. In the case of two of the five prison listed, adjustments have also been made to take account o the application of VAT to building contracts since Jun 1988.

  Contract

  Original agreed main contract price—tender price (excluding VOP and VAT) £ millions

  Current contract value (including VOP incurred to date and VAT) £ millions

  Brinsford Prison (awarded June 1987)

  23·12

  25·18

  Bullingdon Prison (awarded June 1988)

  33·10

  38·00

  Lindholme II Prison (awarded September 1988)

  31·23

  40·98

  Milton Keynes Prison (awarded December 1988)

  57·17

  71·96

  Whitemoor Prison (awarded February 1988)

  28·85

  31·27

  There are two other new prisons currently under construction. Advance works are taking place at Lancaste Farms young offender institution, where the main contrac has not yet been awarded. At Woolwich prison work i proceeding on the basis of a construction management contract. This involves a number of indivdual contract packages for the completion of the project instead of single lump sum contract. It is not possible to provide comparable estimated cost figures as all the individual contract packages have not yet been let.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Hom Department what is the number of complaints made b boards of visitors as to the standard of workmanship an delays in completion of all major modernisatio programmes of prison building work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since 1 January 1988 letters have been received from three boards of visitors about delays in the completion of major modernisation programmes at existing prison establishments. It is our objective to proceed as fast as is practicable with the programmes already under way and with those planned.

  Albany Prison, Isle of Wight
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the present number is of empty cells in the Albany prison, Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On Monday 16 January there were nine unoccupied cells in the living accommodation at Her Majesty's prison, Albany.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of remand prisoners being held in police station cells on 9 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On Monday 9 January, 152 prisoners, most of whom would have been on remand, were held in police cells in England and Wales. This is 571 fewer than a month previously. Efforts to secure reductions are continuing.

  Leeds Prison
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost, and the expected completion date, of the building programme to redevelop Leeds prison.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is expected that work on the redevelopment of Her Majesty's prison Leeds will be completed by 1997. The estimated cost at 1988 price levels is approximately £48 million, including VAT.

  Feltham Remand Centre
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of building Feltham remand centre.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The final cost of building Her Majesty's young offenders institution and remand centre Feltham is likely to be in the order of £29 million subject to the determination of a number of outstanding claims.

  British Summer Time
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the response he has received to his consultation document regarding British summer time; and whether he has yet reached any conclusions.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A consultation note was sent to Government Departments last year with a request that they seek the views of interested bodies on the options set out in that note for future summer time arrangements.

  The results of this survey are being studied and will form the basis of a consultation document to be published in the near future with the intention of stimulating wider public debate on the matter.

  Sunday Trading
  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the consultative document entitled "The Rest Proposals", published by the Keep Sunday Special Organisation in connection with the reform of the Shops Act 1950.

  Mr. Renton
  Yes. We are considering these together with the other proposals we have received.

  Nigerian Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of Nigerian citizens currently serving sentences in Her Majesty's prisons on immigration offences.
  274
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  According to the records held centrally, which may be incomplete, on 30 November 1988 no Nigerian citizens were serving sentences in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for offences under the Immigration Act 1971.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of Nigerian citizens currently held in prisons in England and Wales pending a Home Office decision on deportation or permission to stay in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Renton
  According to information available centrally, a total of 36 Nigerian citizens were detained as at 31 December 1988 under Immigration Act powers in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales. These include those being dealt with under deportation powers, as illegal entrants and after being detained at ports of entry.

  Prison Works (Vacancies)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of vacancies for prison works craftsmen or women at each of the London prisons on 1 January.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Vacancies for civilian craftsmen or women at the London prisons as at 1 January are set out in the following table.

  Prison

  Complement

  Vacancies

  Brixton

  (24)

  2

  Holloway

  (15)

  2

  Pentonville

  (15)

  2

  Wandsworth

  (19)

  12

  Wormwood Scrubs

  (18)

  11

  Prisons (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has already been allocated in the current financial year for repair or modernisation at each of the London prisons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The amount of money allocated for the current financial year to each of the London prisons is as follows:

  £

  Brixton

  1,288,000

  Feltham

  1,312,000

  Holloway

  267,000

  Latchmere House

  195,000

  Pentonville

  3,140,000

  Wandsworth

  1,125,000

  Wormwood Scrubs

  2,057,000

  Total

  9,384,000

  Prison Hospitals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a senior member of the prison department last visited each of the London prison hospitals; and on what dates the visits took place; what reports of general conditions within those hospitals were made to his Department; and if he will make a statement.
  275
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The last visits by senior members of the Prison Department to the hospitals of prison service establishments in the London area were as follows:

  Establishment

  Date of visit

  Officer visiting

  Whether report made of hospital conditions

  Ashford

  9 January 1989

  Regional Principal Medical Officer

  No

  Brixton

  2 December 1988

  Regional Principal Medical Officer

  No

  Feltham

  28 August 1988

  Regional Principal Medical Officer

  No

  Holloway

  13 December 1988

  Director Prison Medical Services

  No

  Pentonville

  6 December 1988

  Regional Principal Medical Officer

  No

  Wandsworth

  15 July 1988

  Regional Principal Medical Officer

  No

  Wormwood Scrubs

  13 January 1989

  Director Prison Medical Services

  Yes

  The Director of Prison Medical Services, following his visit to the temporary hospital facility at Wormwood Scrubs prison, has reported that he supports a decision by the managing principal medical officer to close the facility in the interests of health and hygiene. Consideration is being given to means of remedying the defects identified. Provision for a fully equipped hospital is included in the urgent redevelopment scheme for this establishment. Building is scheduled to start in two years' time.

  Proxy Votes
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the law to enable one person to attest the proxy vote of more than one other person in elections.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We hope shortly to issue a consultation paper on absent voting, which will explore the various options for change, including that mentioned by my hon. Friend.

  Shotgun Licences
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the arrangements for the granting of shotgun licences to minors.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Under section 28 of the Firearms Act 1968 it is open to a chief officer of police to refuse to grant a shotgun certificate if he has reason to believe that an applicant is prohibited by the Act from possessing a shotgun, or cannot be permitted to possess one without danger to the public safety or to the peace. In relation to shotguns there are no specified age restrictions, but age is one factor which the chief officer may take into account in reaching a decision.

  New, stricter controls for the issue of shotgun certificates will come into force under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 later this year. The Act changes the emphasis so that a chief officer has to be satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to possess a shotgun without danger to the public safety or to the peace. It also contains a new provision to the effect that a certificate shall not be issued if the chief officer is satisfied that the applicant does not have a good reason for possessing, purchasing or acquiring a shotgun.

  Burglaries
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many burglaries were committed in Derbyshire in 1983; and how many were committed in the last year for which figures are available.
  276
  Mr. John Patten
  The information is published annually in table S3.1 of "Criminal statistics, England and Wales, Supplementary Tables, Volume 3", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Football Matches (Arrests)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests took place at Luton police station of Luton Town supporters following the Ipswich Town v Luton Town Littlewoods cup tie on 17 November 1987; and under the name of which club these arrests appear in the 1987–88 season arrest totals.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Fifty-two Luton supporters were arrested in connection with damage to a coach on which they were returning to Luton from Ipswich after this match. All were subsequently released without charge. None of these arrests was included in the totals of arrests at football grounds compiled by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Pirate Decoders
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the proposed Independent Television Commission will have responsibility for policing pirate decoders.

  Mr. Renton
  No.

  Football Matches (Policing Costs)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State For the Home Department whether, pursuant to the answer of 19 December 1988 on football statistics,Official Report, columns 56–60, he will publish similar tables to the 1987–88 English Football League season showing the costs of policing matches and the costs per spectator at each ground, with clubs being listed in the order of those with the cheapest costs per spectator.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This information is not collected from individual forces by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

DEFENCE

  Challenger Tank
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what impact he expects his announcement on the Challenger tank will have on jobs in the Nottingham travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Subject to Vickers Defence Systems winning the production contract for the Challenger 2 Mk
  277
  II there will clearly be a beneficial effect on employment opportunities generally, especially when the downstream effects on subcontractors are taken into consideration. It is, of course, for the companies concerned to decide precisely where this work will be carried out. However, traditionally Royal Ordnance, Nottingham has been involved in the manufacture of tank main armament.

  Mess Stewards
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Royal Marine service men are permanently assigned as stewards to Royal Marine messes; and whether those service men who are not permanently assigned as mess stewards and occasionally act as waiters at officers' messes volunteer for these duties;

  (2) whether those service men who are not permanently assigned as mess stewards and occasionally act as waiters at officer' messes receive additional pay for fulfilling such duties; and what are the general criteria concerning the use of servicemen who are not permanently assigned as mess stewards as waiters at mess nights.

  Mr. Neubert
  Royal Marine service men are not permanently assigned as stewards. Within the corps steward billets are filled by volunteers, who serve a normal draft, or by others for a period normally not exceeding six months. Acting as waiter at an officers' mess may form part of a steward's duties and this does not attract additional pay. As far as possible only volunteers perform waiters' duties at mess nights.

  Chipmunk Aircraft
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Chipmunk aircraft the RAF operates; what is their average age; how much per hour they cost to fly; what is the availability of spares; what plans the RAF has to replace the Chipmunks; if he will list the aeroplanes that have been considered as suitable replacements; and whether the RAF has flown the ARV Super Two manufactured at Sandown, Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal Air Force operates a total of 77 Chipmunk aircraft. Their average age is 35 years. Their basic operating cost (including spares and servicing to normal RAF standards) is about £120 per hour; the availability of spares is satisfactory, and on current plans, the Chipmunk is expected to remain in RAF service until about the turn of the century. The RAF has not flown the ARV Super Two, though it has been used at the Empire test pilots school at the Aeroplane and Armament Establishment, Boscombe Down in the training of student test pilots.

  Royal Arsenal Sports and Recreation Association
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure the continuation of the Royal Arsenal Sports and Recreational Association after the construction of the east London river crossing.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence has no formal responsibility for the Royal Arsenal Sports and Recreational Association. Part of the Manor Way sports ground will be lost as a result of the construction of the east London river crossing, but sufficient land will remain to constitute a viable sports ground. We shall of course be 278
  discussing with the association whether it wishes to retain most of the site on licence from MOD for recreational purposes.

  Pindar Project
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated date when the Pindar project will be completed; what requirements it is expected to fulfil when it is fully operational; and what is its total estimated cost.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Project Pindar is a facility to improve the effectiveness of higher levels of command and control. It is not the practice to disclose the planned completion dates or estimated costs of projects which are not yet in service.

  Boxer System
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated date on which the Boxer system is expected to be operational; what requirements it is expected to fulfil; and what is its total estimated cost.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 317 and table 3 of volume 1 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988". The Boxer 2 communications bearer system will provide a nationwide secure and survivable communications system using new fibre-optic technology. It is not the practice to disclose the planned completion dates or estimated costs of projects which are not yet in service.

  Fastnet Project
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated date on which the Fastnet project is expected to be completed; what requirements it is expected to fulfil when it is fully operational; and what is its total estimated cost.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Fastnet is a phased programme to replace and upgrade the Army's aging telephone exchange system with modern digital equipment. It is not the practice to disclose the planned completion dates or estimated costs of projects which are not yet in service.

  Opcon System
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated date on which the Opcon system is expected to be operational; what requirements it is expected to fulfil; and what is its total estimated cost.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Opcon system has been in successful operational use since 1986. It is an automated message handling system and database for use by Commander in Chief's maritime headquarters at Northwood. It is based on commercial ADP equipment, and the capital cost of the equipment was of the order of £40 million.

  Mapper System
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated date on which the Mapper system is expected to be operational; what requirements it is expected to fulfil when it is fully operational; and what is its total estimated cost.
  279
  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Mapper system, also known as the United Kingdom land forces automated management information system (AMIS), provides information technology facilities to the HQ UKLF linking with nine District Headquarters and other key agencies, including the HQ BAOR and the MOD, to assist in the planning and execution of operations during the transition to war and on peacetime exercises. The system also provides an electronic mail, word processing and management information facility.

  The system was first installed in mid-1985 and is continually being enhanced and expanded to meet the evolving HQ UKLF requirement for better command and control in the UKLF theatre, in support of home defence and NATO reinforcement.

  Total procurement costs to date for the installation and subsequent enhancements and expansions of the system have been in the order of £9 million.

  Battlefield Helicopters
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what troop carrying capacity for battlefield helicopters has been considered by the airmobility working group;

  (2) when the report of the airmobility working group will be completed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have no record of an airmobility working group within the Ministry of Defence.

  Guided Weapons (Expenditure)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the £624 million variation between expenditure and grant of item J6 (Guided Weapons) noted on page 14, Appropriation Accounts 1987–88, HC 17–1 was caused by(a) over-provision arising from the provisional allocation of carry forward from 1986–87 and (b) slower progress.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Some 96 per cent. of the £624 million variation on Item J6 (Guided Weapons), noted on page 14 of the Appropriation Account 1987–88, related to the provisional allocation of the carry forward from 1986–87 and the remaining 4 per cent. was caused by slower progress.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to facilitate the release of information on nuclear safety to the general public living in the Rosyth dockyard area.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Rosyth public safety scheme is available in public libraries in the Rosyth area. All future revisions will also be made available to the public. In addition, the Rosyth local liaison committee provides a forum for exchanges of information between the Royal Navy and the community on nuclear safety matters.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made to the United States Navy authorities following reported incidents involving the discharge of radioactive coolant from United States Navy submarines into Scottish waters.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None. Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that United States practice in 280
  United Kingdom waters, which has been governed by a written arrangement since 1958, has always remained within established national and international standards on release of radioactivity.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to avoid future accidental or deliberate discharges of radioactive coolant into Scottish waters from(a) Royal Navy and (b) United States Navy submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Our operating, maintenance and safety standards for submarine nuclear reactors are exacting, and we are satisfied that the practice of the United States Navy is equally rigorous. Royal Navy submarines are never authorised to discharge significant levels of radioactivity into the sea. We are assured that the same is true of United States nuclear-powered warships in United Kingdom waters.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department's contingency plans for an accident involving a nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed submarine in the Clyde or Rosyth areas were last revised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All Ministry of Defence contingency plans for accidents involving nuclear reactors or nuclear weapons are kept constantly under review. Exercises are held regularly to test our plans.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take immediate action to withdraw the existing ROSPUBSAFE scheme and replace it with a safety scheme based on full consultation with local community representatives.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A review of the Rosyth public safety scheme, in full consultation with local authorities and emergency services, has been in progress for some time. The existing scheme will not be withdrawn until the revision is issued.

  Army Stables
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are taken to enforce the ruling relating to the stabling in Army stables of privately-owned horses set out in his answer to the hon. Member for Northampton, North on 13 January,Official Report, column 783.

  Mr. Neubert
  The costs of stabling privately owned horses in Army stables are recovered from the owners each month on the presentation of a bill by the unit concerned. Failure to settle the bill promptly would result in appropriate action being taken against the individual concerned; this could include the removal of the horse from official premises.

EMPLOYMENT

  Community Programme
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the individuals in Nottingham who were on community programme schemes when employment training was introduced are now(a) still on community programme schemes, (b) on an employment

  281
  training scheme, (c) in work, (d) unemployed and (e) in any other relevant category, both as a number and as a percentage.

  Mr. Nicholls
  At the end of August 1988, there were about 1,800 people on the community programme in Nottingham. On 12 January 1989, 800 people remained on the programme. Information on the destinations of the 1,000 people leaving the community programme is not available, although some of the participants would have transferred to employment training.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the lastest available figures of how many of the employment training programme's filled places are(a) extended placements from the community programme, (b) new public authority placements, (c) new placements in the voluntary sector and (d) new placements in the private sector: (i) nationally and (ii) in north Staffordshire.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of filled places on the employment training programme(a) nationally and (b) in north Staffordshire.

  Mr. Nicholls
  At 6 January 1989 there were 111,000 trainees on employment training in Great Britain. Figures are not separately available for north Staffordshire, but there were approximately 2,100 filled places in Staffordshire as a whole on the same date.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications for the ET child care allowance have been received by his Department; how many have been granted and refused; how much has been paid out in child care allowances; and how many ET trainees are currently receiving child care allowances.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available. Information on the number of employment trainees for whom child care payments are made will be regularly collected from March, with the first results available at the end of April 1989.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new arrangements he has made for claiming back the 100 per cent. advance funding given to ET training managers; how many training managers have applied for deferment because paying back the advances would cause them severe financial hardship; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Repayments of advances for the first three months of ET operations commenced from 1 January 1989. However, where a training manager can demonstrate that this would cause substantial cash flow difficulties, they may now defer the start of the repayments for two months, although the advances still have to be repaid over the period of their contract. Information on the number of training managers taking up this option is not collected separately and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people transferred from the community programme to employment training.
  282
  Mr. Nicholls
  By the end of November 1988, the latest date for which information is available, a total of about 11,000 people had transferred from the community programme to employment training.

  Jobstart Allowance
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications for the jobstart allowance have been received; how many have been granted and refused; how many are currently receiving the allowance; and if he will give a breakdown of the wages of the jobs covered by successful applications.

  Mr. Lee
  In the period from July 1986 to November 1988, 36,791 people applied for jobstart allowance, 27,844 were accepted and 8,947 were rejected because they were not eligible. There are currently 3,966 people receiving the allowance.

  The information requested about the wages of the jobs covered by successful applications is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Training Agents (Investigation)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will list the training agents currently under investigation by his Department with details of the reason for such investigation.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No training agents in employment training are under investigation by Training Agency officials. All training agents and training managers are subject to financial and operational monitoring.

  Mining Regulations
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many miners should be present in a development roadway with only one means of entry and egress under current mining regulations.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Section 24 of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 prohibits the employment of more than nine persons in a place from which there are not two separate means of egress unless a notice of exemption has been given by the inspector for the district.

  Qualifications
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will give, based on the preliminary findings of the 1988 labour force survey(a) the total number of people of working age and (b) the percentage with (i) A level or equivalent or higher, (ii) O level or equivalent, (iii) below O level and (iv) no vocational or educational qualification for each standard English region, Wales and Scotland;

  (2) if he will give, based on the preliminary findings of the 1988 labour force survey, the total number of graduates in employment as a percentage of all in employment in each of the standard English regions, Wales and Scotland;

  (3) if he will give based on the preliminary findings of the 1988 labour force survey, the total numbers of graduates in employment in each of the standard English regions, Wales and Scotland.

  Mr. Lee
  Results from the 1988 labour force survey are not yet available.

  High Moor Colliery (Accident)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give details of the rescue operation at High Moor colliery on 13 January leading to the freeing of 10 trapped miners.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The widely reported operation involved overcoming the hazard presented by a fall of roof extending over a length of approximately 30 metres, resulting in the need to mount the recovery in potentially hazardous conditions.

  The rescue operation at High Moor, which led to the freeing of the 10 trapped men, demonstrated the traditional expertise and bravery of miners in dealing with such a hazardous situation. The co-operative efforts of all concerned, led by the colliery manager and colliery TU officials, to save life even at great personal risk, was the main factor in the success of the operation.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement of the medical and other types of assistance which were given to the 10 miners who were rescued following an accident at High Moor colliery on 13 January.

  Mr. Nicholls
  During the operation the full range of medical services provided by the south Yorkshire area of British Coal were readily available at the mine, and a mine nursing sister was present underground to give any necessary assistance.

  After the trapped men were freed and brought to the surface, they were examined at the colliery medical centre before being allowed home. No major injuries were suffered by any of the men.

  Mine rescue teams with specialised rescue equipment made a rapid response to the emergency. A district inspector from the Health and Safety Executive's mine and quarries inspectorate was underground during the rescue. A principal district inspector was also at the mine to assist in the organisation of the rescue, together with senior officials of both British Coal and the trade unions.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give details of the action he has taken to ensure the safety of operations at High Moor colliery following the accident on 13 January in which 10 miners were trapped following a collapse of 30 m of the roof in its main gate heading.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive's mines and quarries inspectorate began its investigation on 16 January 1989. Due to the need to ensure safe conditions for this investigation it will be some time before the cause of the roof collapse can be established. Any action necessary as a result of the investigation will be taken by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list accidents and other reportable incidents at High Moor colliery since 1985.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information tabled is for the last four calendar years.

  Fatal

  Major injuries

  Dangerous occurrences

  +3-day accidents

  1985

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1 1986

  —

  5

  —

  1 85

  1987

  —

  8

  2

  53

  1988

  1

  4

  —

  29

  284
  1The introduction of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations on I April 1986 required the recording of "plus three-day" accidents. The 1986 figure for these accidents represents a nine-month period only.

  Tourism
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what period will be allowed for consultation by interested bodies following publication of the report on the review of tourism before any Government action is taken.

  Mr. Lee
  A wide range of individuals and organisations have been consulted during the preparation of the review team's report.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to publish the report on the review of tourism.

  Mr. Lee
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to publish the report.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to ensure the continuing existence and uprating of section 4 grant aid assistance for the promotion of tourism.

  Mr. Lee
  A review of tourism policy by my Department was announced by my right hon. Friend in July. The section 4 scheme of assistance is being considered as part of this review.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what calculation he has made of the impact on tourism of the possible withdrawal of university halls of residence from commercial letting as a result of any reduction in University Grants Committee funding of the commercial rates paid by halls to local authorities.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Rates paid in respect of university halls of residence are not currently reimbursed by the University Grants Committee. A decision by the Universities Funding Council not to reimburse the cost of business rates payable, after the introduction of the community charge, in respect of halls of residence used for commercial letting would effectively maintain the present position and therefore should not affect the commercial letting of university halls of residence or have an adverse impact on tourism or revenue received by local authorities.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many oral parliamentary questions he has answered by written reply because the question was not reached at Question Time, for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In 1988, a total of 829 oral questions were tabled to the Secretary of State for Employment, of which 719 received a written reply. These figures do not include oral questions which were subsequently withdrawn, unstarred or transferred to other Departments.

  Benefit Offices
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many part-time unemployment benefit offices there are; how long they are open; and whether he will make a statement.
  285
  Mr. Lee
  There are at present 318 small, part-time benefit offices which are open for between one hour and several mornings each week. In the light of falling unemployment and the smaller number of people now requiring the services of the employment service, we have been considering whether there is still a need to retain all of these. We are, as a result, proposing the closure of 43 part-time offices in areas where demand for their services is low and there is alternative provision. None of the offices concerned is open for more than eight hours a week.

  The employment service is keen to offer an effective service to the public, and particularly to people who are unemployed. This can best be achieved in offices which are large enough to offer a comprehensive range of facilities and by postal signing. It is usual when we consider closure of small part-time offices to write to hon. Members in whose constituencies the offices are, to explain the proposals in detail, and I am doing so in this case.

SCOTLAND

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there is any provision in the set-aside scheme to assist farmworkers whose employment is reduced or lost as a result of the scheme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 15 December, at column 672.

  Glasgow District Court
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average time between the lodging of a plea of not guilty and the resultant trial diet in the Glasgow district court for the latest available period for which this figure is available; and if he will give the same information for the same period for cases going for trial before a stipendiary magistrate.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The average time for cases dealt with in November 1988 was 14 weeks for Glasgow district court, excluding the stipendiary magistrates court, and 25 weeks for cases heard by a stipendiary magistrate.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of cases in which trial diets are set in Glasgow district court for the latest period for which figures are available and the percentage of those cases where a plea of guilty was presented when the trial was called.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Figures are not available in the precise form requested, but in 1987, 63 per cent, of the 13,368 persons called to court in Glasgow district court pled guilty at some stage in the proceedings.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of cases called in Glasgow district court for the latest year in which figures are available and the same figures three and five years ago.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information requested is given in the table:286

  Persons called to court: Glasgow District Court

  Year

  Number

  1984

  16,704

  1986

  14,892

  1987

  13,368

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each local government area the number of council houses sold to tenants under the Housing Acts; and if he will express this as a proportion of the total housing stock in each such area.

  Lord James Douglas-hamilton
  The available information is set out in the table.

  Local authority houses sold to sitting tenants from 1 April 1979 to 30 September 1988

  Area

  Houses sold to sitting tenants from 1 April 1979 to 30 September 1988

  Percentage of stock sold to sitting tenants1

  Scotland

  95,023

  10·63

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  521

  18·18

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  941

  18·89

  Roxburgh2

  913

  14·57

  Tweeddale2

  270

  16·58

  Central

  Clackmannan

  1,143

  11·84

  Falkirk

  4,250

  12·68

  Stirling

  1,680

  12·79

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale2

  989

  19·95

  Nithsdale

  1,610

  18·74

  Stewartry

  632

  24·83

  Wigtown

  879

  18·67

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  4,196

  18·09

  Kirkcaldy

  4,620

  17·37

  North East Fife2

  1,988

  24·85

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  3,721

  9·72

  Banff and Buchan2

  2,158

  17·06

  Gordon

  1,291

  21·18

  Kincardine and Deeside

  666

  18·37

  Moray

  2,147

  20·24

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  288

  26·89

  Caithness2

  690

  16·04

  Inverness

  1,107

  15·78

  Lochaber

  515

  15·30

  Nairn

  212

  19·12

  Ross and Cromarty

  671

  10·73

  Skye and Lochalsh

  140

  20·00

  Sutherland

  226

  13·06

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  2,621

  16·13

  Edinburgh2

  7,228

  12·71

  Midlothian

  2,308

  17·54

  West Lothian

  2,130

  9·45

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  950

  11·45

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  369

  20·20

  Clydebank

  944

  7·98

  Clydesdale

  608

  6·29

  287

  Area

  Houses sold to sitting tenants from 1 April 1979 to 30 September 1988

  Percentage of stock sold to sitting tenants1

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  460

  10·49

  Cumnock and Doon Valley2

  639

  6·17

  Cunninghame

  2,496

  10·59

  Dumbarton2

  854

  6·51

  East Kilbride

  324

  19·95

  Eastwood

  426

  21·00

  Glasgow

  8,055

  4·60

  Hamilton

  1,991

  8·71

  Inverclyde

  1,543

  7·69

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  1,620

  8·91

  Kyle and Carrick

  2,977

  16·23

  Monklands 2

  1,396

  4·89

  Motherwcll2

  1,941

  4·86

  Renfrew

  4,076

  10·32

  Strathkelvin

  1,623

  14·81

  Tayside

  Angus

  2,332

  16·00

  Dundee

  2,668

  6·65

  Perth and Kinross

  2,923

  17·93

  Orkney Islands2

  243

  16·76

  Shetland Islands

  331

  13·66

  Western Isles

  483

  20·21

  1 Stock as at 30 September 1979.

  2 Complete figures are not available for this period, due to outstanding returns.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in respect of the local authority areas of Tayside region, Angus district, Dundee district and Perth and Kinross district, he will list the details of the figures he used to calculate(a) the estimate of the total revenue expenditure, (b) the amount of revenue support grant, (c) the amount of non-domestic rates, (d) the amount attributable to the poll tax, (e) the amount of revenue balances he expects each to use and (f) the effective number of registerd persons for each.

  Mr. Lang
  The Secretary of State has not calculated the figures mentioned under(a), (d) and (e). These are matters for the local authorities concerned. Details of calculations of (b), (c) and (f) are given in the "Report on the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1988", a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the full details of how the calculations were arrived at and the assumptions which were made in calculating(a) the poll tax for Tayside region, (b) the water poll tax for Tayside region, (c) the district poll tax for Angus district, (d) the district poll tax for Dundee district and (e) the district poll tax for Perth and Kinross district;

  (2) if he will list the full details of how he calculated the total amount of poll tax payable in each district in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  For Scotland as a whole the 9·8 per cent increase means that if local authorities increase their 288
  expenditure by no more than 6 per cent., plus allowances for the cost of community charge and school board administration, the amount raised in community charges need be no more than that raised in domestic rates this year. The first stage of the calculation of a community charge for each area was therefore to calculate the personal community charge for each local authority, which would raise the same amount as domestic rates did this year. It was assumed that exemptions and losses in collection for community charges would be at a level corresponding to present reliefs and losses for domestic rates.

  The resulting community charge figure for each area was then adjusted to take account of the extent to which the individual authorities' grant increase was larger or smaller than the average for the class of authority.

  The community water charge was calculated as the community charge equivalent to this year's domestic and public water rates, increased for inflation.

  The approach was applied to all local authority areas in Scotland.

  Mylnefield Research Establishment
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the representations he has received regarding the future of the Mylnefield research establishment; and if he will make a statement on its future.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received 11 letters from growers and others, including one from my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) expressing concern about proposed reductions in Government funding of near market horticultural R and D, on the possible outcome of a review currently in hand on the organisation of horticultural R and D throughout Great Britain, and the implications for the future of the Scottish crop research institute at Mylnefield. No final decisions have been made on the future levels of public expenditure on horticultural R and D, or on the organisation of this work, but the continued existence of the Scottish crop research institute is not in question. Horticultural R and D accounts for around £820,000 out of the institute's current budget of £5,650,000.

  Football Matches (Arrests)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail for the 1987–88 season the total number of arrests within Scottish league grounds during league and cup matches as a percentage of total attendances.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The overall figure is 0·0163 per cent. Details for individual grounds are not held centrally.

  Employment Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of employment training places filled in September, October, November and December of 1988 for each regional and island council area.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not available in the form requested except at disproportionate cost.

  However, as a result of an earlier exercise filled employment training places were calculated by region as at 25 November 1988. The results are shown in the table.
  289

  Filled places on 25 November 1988

  Region

  Number

  Borders

  157

  Central

  1,008

  Dumfries and Galloway

  442

  Fife

  1,826

  Grampian

  802

  Highlands and Islands

  644

  Lothian

  3,079

  Strathclyde

  10,432

  Tayside

  1,183

  Total

  19,573

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of places in employment training(a) authorised and (b) filled for each of (i) private sector, (ii) local government, (iii) public sector and local government and (iv) voluntary sector.

  Mr. Lang
  This information cannot be provided other than at disproportionate cost.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many oral parliamentary questions he has answered by written reply because the question was not reached at Question Time for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Rifkind
  In the 1987–88 parliamentary Session, approximately 362. It is not possible to extract from this figure the number of questions withdrawn on the day on which they were due for answer.

  Motorways (Crash Barriers)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of motorway in(a) Scotland, (b) the United Kingdom and (c) England has central reservation crash barriers; and if he has any plans to increase the proportion of motorway in Scotland which has such barriers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  28 per cent. of trunk road motorway in Scotland currently has central reserve safety fencing. I understand that the English motorway network is fully equipped with central reserve fencing, except where the carriageways are widely separated, and that the position is the same in Wales and Northern Ireland. Our policy is to achieve this position in Scotland as quickly as resources and opportunities permit.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many miles of existing motorway in Scotland crash barriers will be provided by the end of(a) 1989, (b) 1990 and (c)

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]It is Scottish Office policy to instal central reserve safety fencing on all new sections of motorway. So far as existing motorway is concerned, central fencing will be provided as quickly as resources and opportunities permit until all sections have been completed. The work is ongoing and I would not wish to speculate over annual rates of progress.

  Hospital Buildings (Sale)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the current arrangements in force regarding the application of funds raised by the sale by health boards of hospital buildings surplus to their requirements.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) on 11 November, at column 345.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Premises (Greater London)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any information on the change in numbers of(a) greengrocers', (b) butchers', (c) bakers', (d) estate agents' and (e) building societies' trading premises in the Greater London area over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Forth
  The following is the information:

  Heading

  End 1979

  End 1987

  Greengrocers

  1,092

  1,004

  Butchers

  1,148

  1,073

  Bakers

  570

  712

  Property Owning Etc.1

  1,837

  2,575

  Other Financial Institutions 2

  796

  1,256

  1 Includes estate agents.

  2 Includes building societies.

  Separate figures are not available for estate agents or for building societies. The figures for bakers include those classified to manufacturing and retail bread and flour confectionery.

  GATT
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consultation he had with consumer organisations before the recent GATT mid-term review in Montreal; and if there are to be any consultations with such groups as a result of the breakdown of the review.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My officials regularly consult consumer organisations about the GATT round of trade negotiations. Such a meeting was held shortly before the Montreal mid-term ministerial meeting and another will take place next week.

  Fireworks (Injuries)
  Dame Janet Fookes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is yet able to announce the statistics for fireworks injuries for 1988.

  Mr. Forth
  Information from most but not all hospitals has now been received, and the usual reminders are being sent. Busy hospitals are of course doing us a favour in providing the figures. We hope to announce the firework injury statistics, as usual, some time in March.

  Japanese-owned Businesses
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many Japanese-owned businesses have located in(a) the south east, (b) the north east, (c) the north west, (d) the south west, (e) Scotland and (f) south Wales, for the most recent year period for which figures are available.
  291
  Mr. Forth
  Comprehensive statistics on foreign-owned businesses are not available, but the numbers of Japanese-owned manufacturing companies known to have located between January 1979 and December 1988, in the stated regions, are as follows:

  Number

  (a) South East

  14

  (b) North East

  10

  (c) North West

  4

  (d) South West

  2

  (e) Scotland

  11

  (f) South Wales

  9

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many Japanese-owned businesses have located in the United Kingdom in the most recent 10-year period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  Comprehensive statistics on foreign-owned businesses are not available, but the DTI is aware of 79 Japanese manufacturing companies that have set up in the United Kingdom between January 1979 and December 1988.

  Water
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what other information, other than that contained in the Water Bill and the forthcoming amendments, notice of which was given on 11 January, he will be sending to, or he expects to be requested by, the Commission of the European Economic Community in respect of prospective legislation relating to take over bids and golden shares in the water industry.

  Mr. Forth
  None. Responsibility for the Water Bill lies with the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  European Single Market
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress towards completing the European single market in 1992.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We are continuing to make rapid progress towards the goal of completing the single market by the 1992 target date. This was emphasised in the report produced by the European Commission in November, assessing the position at the half-way point in the single market programme.

  Over 50 separate measures aimed at removing barriers to trade in Europe were agreed during the Greek Presidency which ended in December. This brings the total number of single market measures agreed to date to some 275, including 128 from the Commission's White Paper programme.

  The Government are strongly committed to the completion of the single market: it will provide major opportunities for business and benefits for consumers.

TRANSPORT

  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Tests)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a detailed analysis for each of the past five years of all roadside tests carried 292
  out by his Department's engineers on heavy goods vehicles specifying where and when these tests occurred; and what were the results.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Information on the results of roadside spot checks is contained in the vehicle inspectorate's annual report and accounts 1987–88. Specific information on the results of roadside checks in each traffic area is contained in the annual reports of the licensing authorities for the five years up to 1987–88. Copies of these reports are in the House Library. Information on the results of individual checks could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Borough Junction, London
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking with British Rail in respect of the Borough junction which serves the London termini of Cannon street, Charing Cross and London bridge, to ensure that there will be no repeat at this junction of the recent incident at Clapham junction.

  Mr. Portillo
  Statutory responsibility for the safe operation of its services rests with British Rail. I know, however, that in the light of the findings of its internal inquiry into the Clapham accident, it initiated urgent investigations to confirm that signalling systems elsewhere on its lines are in order. I understand that London bridge signal box, which controls operations at Borough junction, has been checked as part of this exercise.

  Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to update and amend the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 in line with the recommendations of the Horne committee.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have accepted most of the recommendations in the Horne report. Work is progessing well, in collaboration with the highway authorities and utilities, to produce specifications for reinstatements, a code of practice for diversionary works, arrangements for training and certification of workmen and a computerised street works register. Proposals for legislation are being drawn up with the benefit of advice from the street works advisory committee. A Bill will be introduced as soon as a suitable opportunity can be found.

  Oil Pollution
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken to identify the vessel responsible for the oil pollution in the English channel.

  Mr. Portillo
  Samples of beached oil and contaminated bird feathers have been obtained from various locations along the south coast. These are being analysed by the Laboratory of the Government chemist to try to determine in the first instance whether the pollution stemmed from a single incident or a series of incidents, and the precise nature of the oil involved. Whether or not further action will be possible will depend on the results obtained.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the patrol patterns of the anti-oil pollution aircraft over the Christmas and new year holiday periods.
  293
  Mr. Portillo
  Anti-oil-pollution aerial surveillance patrols took place over the North sea on 24 and 31 December, and over the English Channel on 27 December, 30 December and 5 January.

  Railway Stations
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate how many people in mainland Britain live more than 10 miles from the nearest railway station.

  Mr. Portillo
  This information is not available.

  A38 (Saltash)
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the A38 Saltash road is to be closed to traffic; what is the period when it will be closed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Contrary to recent erroneous press reports, the A38 Saltash tunnel will be closed from 0001 hours to 12 noon on Sunday 22 January 1989 only, for the first of its planned regular maintenance services. This comprises washing the tunnel walls and lighting, changing lighting tubes and bulbs and minor routine maintenance. We expect to close the tunnel overnight at three-monthly intervals to undertake this regular maintenance.

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply of 10 January,Official Report, column 624, if he will state the form in which information of incidents reported to British Transport police is kept.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information is held by the British Transport police on its central computer on a police divisional basis. Information by individual railway stations is not readily available. The hon. Member should approach the BTP for further information.

  Channel Tunnel Terminal
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ask British Rail to make available to right hon. and hon. Members their assessment of Stratford as a possible location for the second London terminal of the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  I will pass on the hon. Member's request.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will list the road traffic accidents involving death or serious injury which have taken place on the AI in Northumberland in the past three years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The road traffic accident figures for the period 1 January 1986 to 31 December 1988 are as follows:

  Year

  Fatal

  Serious

  Total

  1986

  5

  24

  29

  1987

  5

  29

  34

  1988

  5

  24

  29

  294

  Year

  Fatal

  Serious

  Total

  —

  —

  —

  15

  77

  92

  Tyre Treads
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been done on the effect of low tyre tread depth on tyres to road grip.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 17 January 1989]The following reports by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory have been placed in the Library:

  Results on wet cornering done in 1985;

  Supplementary report 672 published in 1981 on straight line grip;

  Leaflet 593 published in 1979—Vehicle Defects and their Contribution to Accidents.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of road accidents are caused by insufficient tyre tread.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 17 January 1989]Well-maintained and properly inflated tyres are important for road safety. Our standards for tyre-tread depth were drawn up with particular regard to necessary adhesion and safety. Accident surveys have shown that although vehicle defects were a main cause in under 10 per cent. of accidents, faulty tyres featured in nearly a third of these. The main problems were blow-outs and wrong pressures. Inadequate tyre depth was a factor in less than 0·8 per cent. of the cases.

  Air Services (North America-Manchester)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations for direct services between North America and Manchester International airport.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]At the most recent negotiations on greater access for US carriers to serve Manchester airport, held in London between 4 and 6 January 1989, the two sides could not reach a mutually acceptable conclusion.

  The Government recognise the importance of these additional services into Manchester airport and are therefore seeking further discussions.

  Transport Infrastructure
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what moneys have been received from the European Community specifically for transport infrastructure investment since 1980; and what projects such moneys have been used to finance.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 17 January 1989]: About £930 million is expected to have been received by the Department from the European Community between 1980–81 and 1988–89 to finance transport infrastructure investment, as follows:

  Recent major projects included in totals

  £ million

  National roads

  Newcastle Western bypass, A38 Manadon-Tamar Bridge, A30 Marsh Mills-Manadon

  430

  295

  Recent major projects included in totals

  £ million

  Rail

  East coast main line electrification, Windsor rail link in Manchester

  220

  Local roads

  Manchester/Salford inner relief route, Bradford City ring road, A456 Bewdley bypass, A30 Penzance primary distributor road

  180

  Ports

  50

  Bus stations, airports etc.

  50

HEALTH

  South East Thames RHA
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much rental is being paid annually for the office accommodation in Randolph house, Wellesley road, Croydon; if he will break the figure down into rental per square foot; to whom the rent is being paid; and when was the last time that the area rented was(a) used by any South East Thames regional health authority staff and (b) fully used by South East Thames regional health authority staff.

  Mr. Freeman
  South East Thames regional health authority pays a gross rent of £525,000 annually for office accommodation in Randolph house. The net rent, after taking into account accommodation which has been sub-let, is £304,400. This equates to just under £7 per square foot. Rent is paid to Sun Life Properties Ltd. as required by the terms of the lease, which expires on 16 August 1990, and the terms of the lease do not allow sub-letting at a lower rent. The accommodation was fully utilised by regional health authority staff until April 1984 and vacated by them in July 1984.

  Leptospirosis
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by year for the last five years by district health authority the number of cases of leptospirosis, Weil's disease, that have been reported; how many were fatal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Cases of infectious diseases are notified by the doctor in attendance to the proper officer for each local authority area. Notifications of leptospirosis are therefore not generally available at the district health authority level. However, the table shows the number of notifications of leptospirosis (including Weil's disease) for regional health authorities for the latest five years available. Evidence from the identifications of the disease by the public health laboratory service indicates that there is undernotification and that perhaps only about one in three cases is formally notified. Also given are the number of deaths registered with underlying cause of death assigned as leptospirosis for RHA of usual residence. From the registration of the death alone, it is not possible to determine whether the case had been formally notified.

  Numbers of (a) notifications of and (b) deaths registered withunderlying cause as: Leptospirosis (including Weil's disease)

  ICD (9)1 100

  Regional Health Authority 1983–1987

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  21987

  (a) Notifications

  RHA Area of notification

  Northern

  —

  —

  3

  1

  2

  296

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  21987

  Yorkshire

  1

  —

  2

  1

  2

  Trent

  4

  3

  2

  1

  3

  East Anglian

  1

  2

  2

  —

  1

  North West Thames

  2

  —

  3

  2

  2

  North East Thames

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  South East Thames

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South West Thames

  2

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Wessex

  1

  2

  1

  2

  5

  Oxford

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  South Western

  2

  5

  5

  8

  2

  West Midlands

  1

  2

  2

  1

  2

  Mersey

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  North Western

  2

  2

  3

  1

  2

  (b) Deaths

  RHA of usual residence

  Northern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Trent

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  East Anglian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North West Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North East Thames

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  South East Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South West Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wessex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oxford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Western

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Mersey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Western

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision.

  2Provisional.

  Note: Figures for deaths from 1986 exculde those at age under 28 days.

  Organ Transplants
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish comparable figures on(a) the United Kingdom's heart transplant programme and (b) that in other countries in the European Community.

  Mr. Freeman
  For details of the United Kingdom heart transplant programme I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 14 December 1988 at column 602. I regret that we do not collect statistics on heart transplantation in other countries in the European Community.

  Diet
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the nation's health in relation to dietary matters.

  Mr. Freeman
  The nation's nutritional health can best be assured if people eat a balanced diet, not too much or too little of any food.

  There is evidence that some people do not eat a balanced diet. For instance the Government accept that the current rates of cardiovascular disease might be lessened if people's intakes of fat and particularly saturated fatty acids, were to be reduced.

  Further information about the national diet is emerging from the results of the dietary and nutritional survey of British adults, undertaken by OPCS in association with the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which are now being analysed.

  Hospital Cleaning
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what type of information is centrally gathered by his Department regarding the impact in National Health Service hospitals in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales of the privatisation of cleaning services; and whether such information refers to (i) the present standards of cleaning works, (ii) savings for health boards in England, Scotland and Wales and for the United Kingdom as a whole and (iii) working conditions of the cleaning staff of such private contractors.

  Mr. Mellor
  Since the launch of the competitive tendering initiative in 1983, health authorities in England have been required to put their cleaning services out to tender. Information collected centrally, following the initiative, concerned the progress made by authorities in implementing the policy, the award of contracts and the savings generated. Virtually all domestic services have now been tendered with about 80 per cent, of the tenders being won in-house. Savings on these services total over £80 million.

  No information is held centrally on standards, which is a matter for health authorities, or on conditions of service for staff of private contractors, which is a matter for the companies concerned and their employees.

  Information about Scotland and Wales is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Post-operative Treatment
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what National Health Service post-operative treatment is available, similar to that found in other European countries; in which areas post-operative treatment can be obtained under the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Any post-operative treatment which the responsible doctors deem to be clinically necessary is normally provided on the National Health Service. If the hon. Member knows of difficulties which have been experienced with any particular form of such treatment perhaps she would let me know.

  Nurses' Pay
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the median level of earnings for nurses expressed as a proportion of average earnings in each year from 1983–84 to the most recent available date.

  Mr. Mellor
  We cannot derive the information requested from the data on earnings which are held centrally.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his further plans for the screening of women for cervical cancer.

  Mr. Freeman
  Comprehensive guidance to health authorities and family practitioner committees on cervical cancer screening services was issued in January 1988. All 298
  district health authorities in England have now implemented computerised call and recall systems. All women aged 20 to 64 are to be invited for screening by March 1993—unless their general practitioner has indicated that they should be excluded—and recalled at least every five years. We shall continue to monitor progress.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the psychological effects on patients of the current system of cervical cancer screening.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. Nevertheless we recognise the importance of minimising the anxieties women might have about participation in the cervical cancer screening programme. We have asked health authorities to aim their local health education programmes at encouraging women to respond positively to their screening invitations and to ensure that women who require treatment following their test are offered counselling and support.

  Midwives (Cornwall and Isles of Scilly)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the regrading of midwives in the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Department has received some 50 written representations, including a petition from the Cornwall branch of the Royal College of Midwives.

  Salaries
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discretion is allowed to regional health authorities in determining clinical and nursing salary scales.

  Mr. Mellor
  The salaries of nurses employed in the National Health Service are determined by reference to national salary scales, with appropriate supplements for staff working in London. These are set in the light of the recommendations of the independent nurses pay review body and health authorities currently have no discretion to vary these salary scales.

  Protection Orders (Northumberland)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were regarded as under protection orders on a month to month basis in Northumberland in 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information about the number of children removed to a place of safety is collected centrally on an annual basis only. The number in 1988 in Northumberland was 25 and is given in the provisional feedback "Children removed to a place of safety, year ending 31 March 1988, England"; copies are available in the Library of the House.

  School Nurses (Statistics)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses are engaged in educational medicine and the care of children in hospitals; and if he will give similar figures for the last five years.

  Mr. Mellor
  The total number of nursing staff employed in the school health service in England at 30 September each year from 1983 to 1987 was:
  299

  Year

  Wholetime equivalents

  1983

  2,890

  1984

  2,910

  1985

  2,920

  1986

  2,810

  1987

  2,790

  Note These figures exclude nursing staff employed in special schools.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses in educational medicine and the care of children in schools were in each grade before and after the recent grading review.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Certificate of School Nursing
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what pay enhancements were offered to nurses acquiring the certificate of school nursing in each of the last five years, and before and after the recent grading review.

  Mr. Mellor
  The new clinical grading structure is designed to recognise and reward the possession of post basic nursing qualifications, including the certificate of school nursing. The Department's guidance to health authorities is that the minimum grade appropriate for posts which require first level registration and the school nursing certificate is scale E.

  Possession of the certificate was not a factor in grading prior to the introduction of the new structure. No additional allowances are or were payable to those who have acquired the certificate.

  Listeriosis
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in any of the notified cases of listeriosis in 1987 and 1988, there was any evidence of a vector other than food.

  Mr. Freeman
  Three of the 546 listeria cases reported to the public health laboratory service in 1987 and 1988 were microbiologically confirmed as being food associated. No vector was identified in the other cases.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to reduce the incidence of food poisoning.

  Mr. Freeman
  Apart from regular liaison with the food industry and enforcement agencies, action is being taken on a number of fronts. The Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have a number of studies under way on a range of subjects; the public health laboratory service, in addition to its routine monitoring of laboratory reports, also has in train a number of specific studies. The Department is working with the manufacturing and retail sectors of the food industry on the prevention and control of contamination in foods.

  On a wider front, the Department is jointly responsible with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the Food Act and legislation made under it. A review ol both the Act and the food hygiene regulations is under way.
  300
  We are considering what further action is necessary.

  Elderly Persons' Homes (Calderdale)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost, and to which Government Departments, of funding private and voluntary homes for the elderly in Calderdale in each year from 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  Private and voluntary homes are not funded directly by the Government.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many places there were in(a) local authority elderly persons homes and (b) private homes for elderly persons in Calderdale in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information readily available for the period relates to the number of places in homes for elderly people and younger physically handicapped people. Information for the years ending 31 March 1981 to 1986 is published in "Residential Accommodation for Elderly and Younger Physically Handicapped People: All Residents in Local Authority, Voluntary and Private Homes Year ending 31 March 1981 to Year ending 31 March 1986 England", a copy of which is available in the Library. The information for the year ending 31 March 1980, and provisional information for the year ending 31 March 1987, is given in the table.

  Number of places in residential care homes in Calderdale local authority for elderly people and for younger physically handicapped people, as at 31 March, 1980 and 1987

  Year

  Local authority homes

  Voluntary homes

  Private homes

  All homes

  1980

  656

  91

  131

  878

  19871

  702

  32

  438

  1,172

  1 Provisional.

  Operations (Waiting Lists)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people waiting for operations(a) nationally and (b) in Calderdale, have been removed from waiting lists because they became ill, in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect the information requested centrally.

  Private Health Sector (Calderdale)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private beds were available, and how many consultant hours were worked, in the private health sector in Calderdale in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  The only available information centrally is given in the table.

  Number of beds in private hospitals, homes and clinics registered under section 33 of the Registered Homes Act 1984-Calderdale health authority

  Year

  Total beds

  1982

  141

  1983

  145

  1984

  168

  1985

  272

  1986

  340

  Cook-Chill Food
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken to ensure the public can safely consume cook-chill food from supermarkets that store such food in systems that contravene his Department's 1980 guidelines.

  Mr. Freeman
  This Department, in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the food industry, is drawing up guidelines for cooked-chilled manufactured food sold from retail outlets. The proposed guidelines will cover storage and display conditions and will take account as appropriate of the recommendations in the Department's existing guidelines on pre-cooked chilled catering foods.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking following the publication of the results of a survey into food hygiene in National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales undertaken by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers which indicated that the cook-chill processes in 19 per cent, of the hospitals surveyed between 1 April 1987 and 31 March 1988 did not comply with his Department's 1980 guidelines.

  Mr. Freeman
  Health authorities have been asked to provide information on standards of hygiene in their kitchens including those involving cook-chill and this will be carefully considered for further action.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many members of the Yorkshire regional health authority have declared a pecuniary interest in cook-chill catering; and when these interests were declared;

  (2) how many members of the Wakefield district health autority have declared a pecuniary interest in cook-chill catering; and when these interests were declared.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. But as recorded in the DHA minutes, one member of Wakefield health authority gave notice on 25 November that he had received an invitation to join/advise a company specialising in 100 per cent, sterile food. I understand the company currently operates on the continent but has plans to undertake marketing trials in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he is giving to Calderdale health authority on cook-chill in the light of the recent new evidence on listeria.

  Mr. Freeman
  The advice contained in the 1970 guidelines on cook-freeze catering, as amended by the guidelines on pre-cooked chilled foods published in 1980, is still operational. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health said in his reply of 14 December to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) at column 601 are satisfied that provided these guidelines are carefully followed, microbiologically sound food will be produced.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if it is possible for cook-chill food to be supplied from the private sector to National Health Service hospitals with food production units within the requirements of his Department's 1980 guidelines on cook-chill food.
  302
  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 17 January at column 114

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield of 16 January 1988, the public health laboratory service of cook-chill food has included food supplied to hospital patients.

  Mr. Freeman
  The public health laboratory service survey referred to in my reply of 16 January at column 43 includes cook-chill food supplied by NHS hospitals.

  Water Fluoridation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action his Department intends to take in the light of the proposals by the Severn-Trent water authority to give notice to terminate the agreement by which fluoridated water is supplied from the Elan valley reservoir to Birmingham, Solihull and adjacent areas unless by 1 February his Department and the Water Authorities Association resolve the current dispute over the terms of the indemnity granted to water suppliers;

  (2) what are the terms of the indemnity granted to water suppliers who have previously agreed to requests for fluoridation schemes; how the indemnity offered to water suppliers for new schemes has been implemented since the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985; how such indemnities were implemented before that Act; and what extensions to the existing indemnity have been offered to the Water Authorities Association in recent negotiations with his Department.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 16 January at columns 41–42 which said that a copy of the terms of the indemnity for water undertakers had been placed in the Library. The only major change to the indemnity since the passage of the Water Fluoridation Act 1985 has been the withdrawal of cover in the event of a legal challenge to the powers of water undertakers to add fluoride to the water supply. This is because the Act itself removed any doubt about these powers.

  We are considering the terms of the indemnity following representations from the Water Authorities Association.

  Cyclotron (Expenditure)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what grounds he made his decision to spend ?6 million on a cyclotron to be sited at St. Thomas's hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 7 June 1988 Ministers approved a grant of £6 million to the Cyclotron trust as a contribution towards the charitable funds it is raising to install a Cyclotron at St. Thomas's hospital. The decision was made on the understanding that the Neutron therapy the cyclotron can provide, can give relief from the effects of certain cancers. Ministers decided to support the voluntary fund raisers in order to make such treatment more widely available to NHS patients.

  Hospital Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by regional health authority the number of vacant posts in 1988 for hospital pharmacists grade 1 and grade 2 and pharmacy technicians.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect this information centrally.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Finance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make available to hon. Members any evidence collected from local authorities which supports his answer of 19 December,Official Report, column 42, that his proposals on housing finance will not significantly affect council house rents either in Nottingham or nationally.

  Mr. Trippier
  My earlier reply explained that my right hon. Friend's proposals for capital expenditure and finance were not expected to have any impact on council house rents. We have made separate proposals on housing finance, suggesting new machinery for subsidising local authority housing revenue accounts. The effect these proposals will have on council rents will depend partly on the way we choose to operate the system year by year, and partly on the decisions taken by individual local authorities, who will retain ultimate responsibility for setting their own rents.

  Water Act 1973
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the directions made by his Department under section 30 of the Water Act 1973 since the implementation of the Act, giving the date of each such direction, the authority to which it applied and the nature of the change to which the direction referred;

  (2) what directions he has made for the charges schemes under the provisions of section 31 (3) of the Water Act 1973 since that Act came into force, giving the date and the authorities subject to such directions in each instance.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No directions were given under section 30(5) and none have been given under section 3(4) of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act 1988 which has replaced it.

  No directions have been given under section 31(3).

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what dates since the implementation of the Water Act 1973 he has made regulations under section 32(2) of that Act with respect to the installation of meters.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No regulations were made under section 32(2) of the Water Act 1973, which was repealed by the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act 1988. Two sets of regulations have been made under section 5 of the 1988 Act: the Water (Meters) Regulations 1988 No. 1048 and the Water (Meters) (Amendments) Regulations 1988 No. 1288. These were made on 14 June 1988 and 25 July 1988 respectively.

  Alexander Fleming House
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish details of any plans to carry out a scheme of refurbishment to Alexander Fleming house, London SE1;

  (2) if he has any plans to list Alexander Fleming house, Elephant and Castle, London SE1 under the Town and Country Planning Acts as a building of architectural significance.

  Mr. Chope
  Alexander Fleming house is a leased building and the landlord has yet to take a final decision about a major refurbishment. I have no plans to list this building under the Town and Country Planning Acts.

  Housing Starts
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the figures for private sector housing starts for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Trippier
  Figures of private sector housing starts appear in table 6.1(a) of "Housing and Construction Statistics, 1977–1987", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Inner City Regeneration
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he proposes to take to encourage local authorities to use simplified planning zones to facilitate private sector investment in inner city regeneration.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department has already issued advice on the preparation of SPZ schemes (PPG5), on the statutory procedures (circular 25/87), and on the application of environmental assessment procedures in these areas (circular 24/88). Promotional literature has been widely circulated to local planning authorities, businesses and other organisations involved in regenerating inner city areas. SPZ schemes have already been established at Derby and Corby and other schemes in preparation include those at Birmingham, Enfield, Rotherham, Cleethorpes and Glanford/Scunthorpe.

  Economic Development Projects
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the proposed new economic development power will contain restrictions to prevent local authorities assisting in providing wages or salaries for staff in economic development projects.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Restrictions on the use of the new power will be set out in regulations on which we shall consult local government. The Government do not believe that local authorities should be giving long-term direct subsidies to wages and salaries of private-sector firms.

  Water (Privatisation)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has developed to ensure adequate investment in the sewage system infrastructure after the privatisation of the water supply industry.
  305
  Mr. Moynihan
  Capital programmes costing £900 to £1,000 million have been developed by water authorities, aimed at bringing substandard sewage treatment works into compliance with their discharge consents by March 1992. It will be for the proposed National Rivers Authority to ensure that these programmes are satisfactorily implemented, and to monitor the performance of sewage treatment works to ensure an acceptable standard of continuing performance.

  Housing (New Towns)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Government intend to continue with the management agency agreement to take over the running of all housing in new towns.

  Mr. Trippier
  The management of their rented housing stock is entirely a matter for new town development corporations. The decision to offer a management agency agreement to anyone is taken by the board of the development corporation. The Government have no standing in these matters.

  Fire Service and Civil Defence
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much in percentage terms ratepayers pay for their fire service in each of the fire and civil defence authority areas outside London.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In 1987–88 the precept incomes of fire and civil defence authorities expressed as percentages of rates paid by all ratepayers in each metropolitan area are as follows:

  Area

  per cent.

  Greater Manchester

  4·3

  Merseyside

  2·9

  South Yorkshire

  3·9

  Tyne and Wear

  4·4

  West Midlands

  3·4

  West Yorkshire

  4·8

  Estate Action
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the increase in provision for the Estate Action programme for 1989–90.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Estate Action provision for 1989–90 has been increased by £40 million to £190 million, which is 36 per cent, more than the current year's provision.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when was the last time a code of guidance as to sites of special scientific interest was issued.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The code of guidance was issued in November 1982. A revised code is in preparation and it is expected to be submitted for approval by Parliament later this year.

  Water
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which of the 31 water supplies subject to 306
  action programmes agreed by his Department now comply with the European Community drinking water directive limiting the levels of aluminium in the water supply; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Two of the 31 drinking water supplies subject to remedial programmes for aluminium now comply with the European Community drinking water directive. These are Tunstall (Northumbrian water authority) and parts of Halifax served by Thrum Hall treatment works (Yorkshire water authority).

  Most of the remaining 29 supplies should comply by 1990.

  Rents and Rates
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the projected rise in local authority(a) rents and (b) rates for each year between 1988–89 and 1990–91 in current prices and 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 18 January 1989]We cannot say what local authorities will choose to do in future years. For 1988–89, however, local authorities in England increased their rents by an average of £1·57 per week over the previous year. (£l·48p at 1987–88 prices). The average increase in general rates in 1988–89 was 17·10p in the £, or 16·09p at 1987–88 prices.

  Lowermoor Water Treatment Works
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many requests for a drinking water derogation order were made to his Department by the South West water authority with respect to the incident at Lowermoor water treatment works on 6 July 1988; and on what dates they were received.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 18 January 1989]South West water authority submitted to my Department on 3 August 1988 an application for an emergency derogation under article 10 of the EC drinking water directive. Letters from SWW dated 15 August, 31 August and 14 September requested extension of its application.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Minister for Water and Planning gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) on 17 January, [Official Report Vol. 145, col. 147].

  Pollution
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give for the latest available year and for each of the previous five years the volume of chemical waste and the volume of waste material dumped off the British coast.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave on 10 January to the two questions from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) concerning industrial waste, dredge spoil and sewage sludge at columns 527–28.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received regarding bee diseases.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  During 1988, I received representations from twelve beekeeping associations and from 15 individual bee interests about bee diseases and related matters.

  Food (Microbiological Research)
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's programme of microbiological research into food produced in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food undertakes an extensive programme of research in food microbiology, hygiene related methodology development, costing about £1·9 million in the current financial year. The research is carried out at many establishments including universities, the Food Research Institute, and research associations. The programme of research is aimed at improving the safety and quality of food for the community. A list of individual projects within this programme has already been given in my reply of 22 December 1988 to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley).

  Green Pound
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the European Economic Community regarding devaluation of the green pound as part of the 1989 price proposals.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Following United Kingdom pressure during the 1988 price fixing, the Council and the Commission agreed that the completion of the internal market required the progressive dismantlement of all MCAs, and monetary gaps. The Commission is committed to making proposals for further steps, and I expect to see the 1989–90 price proposals shortly.

  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has assessed the likely impact of the green pound rate changes which come into effect on 18 January on farm incomes.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The green pound devaluations agreed at the 1988 price fixing came into effect on 1 January this year. Taken on their own, they would increase aggregate farm income (the value of United Kingdom agricultural output) by some £120 million in a full year.

  Horticulture (Market Research)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the level of research and development funding in near market research in horticulture.

  Mr. Ryder
  We have received representations on the level of funding for near market research in horticulture from all the main organisations with an interest in horticultural research as well as from other interested parties.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the National Farmers Union about the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I meet representatives of the National Farmers Union frequently to discuss agricultural matters.

  Eggs
  18. Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the United Kingdom's present capacity for production of hens' eggs.
  Mr. Ryder
  It is not possible to make a precise estimate of the United Kingdom's total capacity for production of hens' eggs. In 1988, approximately 12 billion hens' eggs were produced in the United Kingdom, but this may not have reflected the use of all the capacity for production that was available.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the number of egg laying poultry that have been culled under his scheme announced on 19 December.

  Mr. Ryder
  Latest available information is that some 200,000 birds have been culled so far under the slaughter of hens scheme.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future of egg production in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future of egg consumption in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ryder
  The two schemes which my hon. Friend the Minister announced on 19 December have helped to restore stability to the egg market. The further measures to improve animal health and hygiene in the egg industry should enable public confidence to be restored in eggs as a safe and nutritious food. Egg producers should now be able to use their commercial judgment to draw up their future plans.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date he expects salmonella in poultry to be so reduced as to permit old and young people to eat eggs safely again and other people to use them in mayonnaise and similar products.

  Mr. Ryder
  I regret that it is not possible to give a precise answer. Salmonella infection is a highly complex issue involving a great number of factors. It would be misleading to state that it can definitely be eradicated. No country to our knowledge has salmonella-free flocks, but we are working urgently to tackle the problem at every point in the production chain to reduce incidence. In the meantime, consumers should continue to follow the chief medical officer's advice about the use of eggs.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate as to the true extent of infection by salmonella enteritidis in eggs and poultry in Britain.
  309
  Mr. Ryder
  It is not possible to make a precise estimate as to the extent of infection by salmonella enteritidis in eggs or in poultry. As far as eggs are concerned, I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health told the House on 5 December 1988 at column 19, that the risk to any individual is small and the risk to the healthy adult small indeed. As for poultrymeat, thorough thawing of frozen poultry, thorough cooking of poultry and proper handling of poultrymeat in the kitchen should remove any risk.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of jobs likely to be lost in the poultry industry as a result of the culling of 4 million hens under the proposals he announced on 19 December 1988.

  Mr. Ryder
  The schemes which my right hon. Friend announced on 19 December to assist the disposal of surplus eggs and to help the industry to reduce the size of the laying flock have helped to stabilise the market and to restore a degree of confidence.

  I have no firm information about the number of people who may have lost employment in egg production and packing plants following the sudden drop in demand which occurred last month. I regret if any jobs have been lost and hope that with the recovery of the market they will soon be restored.

  It would be quite wrong to suggest that the Government's schemes have been responsible for job losses. Quite clearly, the schemes have helped to sustain employment in the industry.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give his estimate of the size of the United Kingdom laying hen flock at the present date.

  Mr. Ryder
  The annual agricultural census at June 1988 recorded a total of 37·1 million laying fowls in the United Kingdom. In addition, it is estimated that there are a further 250,000 laying fowls on those very small holdings which are not required to make annual returns under the census. The census results will be published shortly.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he most recently met representatives of the United Kingdom poultry industry to discuss the emergency measures to assist egg producers.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) earlier today.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much compensation he now estimates will be paid to egg producers following his statement of 19 December.

  Mr. Ryder
  The latest available information is that up to £2·6 million will be paid in the United Kingdom for the destruction of eggs under the eggs industry scheme and about £800,000 for the culling of hens under the slaughter of hens scheme.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the total imports of foreign eggs to the United Kingdom in December 1988 and 1987.
  310
  Mr. Ryder
  In December 1987, 55,700 boxes of eggs in shell (containing 360 eggs/box) were imported into the United Kingdom. The provisional figure for December 1988 is 21,575 boxes.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has of the quality of British eggs and those of the other 11 European Economic Community countries.

  Mr. Ryder
  All hens' eggs marketed in the European Community must comply with Council regulation 2772/75 and Commission regulation 95/69 which lay down common requirements for quality, weight, labelling and marking throughout the production chain.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many eggs have been tested for salmonella since the statement of the former Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie); what the results have been; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, during the period 23 November to 13 January a total of 9,425 eggs from 320 flocks or units were tested for salmonella by Ministry of Agriculture officials. None were found to be infected. The PHLS has, of course, continued to monitor outbreaks of food poisoning some of which may be related to eggs.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the incineration of bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected cattle carcases.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Incineration is a safe and effective method of disposing of carcases of cattle suspected of having BSE.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy were identified in December 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In December 1988, 339 cases of BSE were confirmed by the laboratory examination of brain tissue.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the British Veterinary Association about the control of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Ministry officials have frequent discussions with the British Veterinary Association on a range of topics, including BSE.

  Farm Walls and Hedges
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the amount of money paid out by his Department as grants for maintenance, repair or construction of farm walls and hedges, for each of last three years and for the current year.

  Mr. Ryder
  The amount of grant paid in England each year since 1985 for repair or construction of walls and the planting of hedges and hedge laying was:
  311

  £ million

  1985

  0·75

  1986

  0·87

  1987

  1·97

  1 1988

  1·26

  1 To June.

  Routine maintenance operations are not grant aided.

  Beef Cattle
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about present prices for beef cattle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have received no recent representations about prices for beef cattle. Throughout 1988 prices have been markedly above those for 1987. Producers' expectations of higher prices have also been reflected in prices for calves and store cattle.

  Vegetables (Pesticides)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to revise the official standards in regard to pesticide and other chemical residues in vegetables.

  Mr. Ryder
  The use of all pesticides is rigorously controlled in the United Kingdom by the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986. In addition to those controls on use, the House recently approved the setting of over 800 statutory maximum residue levels for pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables. These MRLs will be revised as and when appropriate.

  Beef and Sheepmeat
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the progress to date of his discussion with the European Community on the future of the beef and sheepmeat regimes.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Council of Ministers has only briefly discussed proposals from the EC Commission for a review of the sheepmeat regime. Little progress has been achieved in these discussions. Regarding beef, no decision on the proposed reform of the regime was reached at the December Agriculture Council. The existing arrangements have therefore been extended until 5 March with a view to discussions continuing.

  Dairy Farming
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he is next due to meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My right hon. Friend the Minister and 1 have regular contacts with the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss issues affecting the farming industry.

  Food (Purity)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new initiatives he intends to take to improve the purity of food.
  312
  Mr. Ryder
  Both the nutritional value and the safety of food are kept under close and continuous review by an expert advisory committee, whose most recent report, entitled "Food Surveillance 1985 to 1988" was published last November. The report is available in the Library of the House.

  Intervention Stock
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he expects falls in e level of intervention stocks in the coming year.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Intervention stock levels are influenced by a wide range of factors, notably harvest size, market demand and EC support arrangements. The measures agreed by the European Council in February 1988 exert downward pressure on surplus production and thus help to limit intervention.

  Livestock Sector
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to help the livestock sector of the industry during the coming year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I shall continue to make appropriate provision to support the livestock sector during 1989. Actual levels of support will be dependent upon the outcome of this year's price-fixing negotiations; and, in the beef and sheep sectors, the results of the current negotiations on the future of the relevant CAP regimes.

  Agricultural Research
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the future of agricultural research.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) on 1 December 1988 at column 324.

  Board of Agriculture
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department plans to mark the centenary of the creation of the Board of Agriculture.

  Mr. MacGregor
  A number of celebratory events have been planned for 1989. The principal ones are: the launch in January of a centenary appeal for the Save the Children Fund; the publication in March of a specially commissioned history of the Ministry; a reception at Lancaster house to be attended by Her Majesty the Queen; and a major exhibition of the Ministry's work in Hyde park in May as part of the festival of food and farming.

  Deer (Tuberculosis)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to prevent the spread of tuberculosis in farmed deer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the announcement 1 made in the House on 15 December 1988 at columns 674–75.
  313
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he is having with the Deer Farmers Association about tuberculosis in farmed deer.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In my announcement to the House on 15 December 1988 (Hansard columns 674–75) I explained the discussions I was having with the British Deer Farmers Association. I met the Association again on 21 December to discuss these matters further. My officials have also written to a wide range of organisations with an interest in deer farming, inviting their comments on the proposed new measures.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has for the extent of tuberculosis in farmed and wild deer.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Since the beginning of 1986 tuberculosis in farmed deer has been confirmed in six out of an estimated 250 deer farming premises in Great Britain. Since 1971 only eight wild deer have been found to have been infected with tuberculosis out of a total of 734 carcases inspected in connection with official operations in areas where there is a high risk of infection from badgers.

  The extent of tuberculosis in farmed deer will become more clear when legislation, to be introduced shortly, will make the disease notifiable in farmed deer.

  EC Conversion Grants
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to meet representatives of the National Farmers Union to discuss the new European Community conversion grants.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My Department is in regular touch with the union on the Commission's most recent proposals.

  Mr, Ray McSharry
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he intends to meet the new European Community Agriculture Commissioner, Mr. Ray McSharry;

  (2) when he plans to meet the new European Community Commissioner for Agriculture.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I expect to meet Mr. McSharry at the meeting of the Agriculture Council on 23–24 January.

  Country Landowners Association
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the Country Landowners Association; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North, West (Mr. Ashby) on 1 December 1988 at column 325.

  British Poultry Federation
  Mr. Hanky
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the British Poultry Federation; and what matters were discussed.
  314
  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Minister met the president of the British Poultry Federation on 5 May 1988 at the lunch following the federation's annual general meeting. They discussed a number of issues of interest to the industry.

  GATT (Agricultural Trade)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he expects to be made in the general agreement on tariffs and trade discussions on agricultural trade over the next few months following the mid-term review in Montreal.

  Mr. MacGregor
  It was agreed in Montreal that a further meeting of senior trade policy officials should take place in Geneva in April to resolve the outstanding issues and bring the mid-term review of the GATT negotiations to a positive conclusion. Meanwhile, the director general of the GATT will be holding bilateral consultations with the major participants in the negotiation and agriculture will be one of his main concerns.

  The Government will be working with our partners in the Community to resolve the differences of view, notably with the United States, over how to carry forward reform of agricultural trade policies so that the April meeting can agree a clear and detailed framework for the subsequent conduct of the negotiation. All parties to the negotiation will need to take a flexible and constructive approach for progress in this direction to be achieved.

  Women's Farming Union
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Women's Farming Union; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I met the chairman of the Women's Fanning Union on 23 November 1988 when I addressed the union's annual general meeting on various subjects, including the opportunities and challenges facing the marketing boards.

  Countryside Commission
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Countryside Commission; and what issues he expects will be discussed.

  Mr. Ryder
  I met the chairman of the Countryside Commission on 7 November, when we had a very useful discussion on a wide variety of issues. I expect to have similar meetings in future whenever we have matters of mutual concern to tackle.

  Poultry Feed
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to stop the use of recycled animal protein in poultry feed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have no plans to do so. The Diseases of Animals (Protein Processing) Order 1981 requires all protein material for animal feeding stuffs to be manufactured free from salmonella. My officials routinely inspect all premises producing such protein to ensure that this requirement is met.
  315
  In addition, discussions are under way between my officials and representatives of the animal feedingstuffs industry to consider the application of the present controls and any further measures which may be needed to reduce salmonella contamination in feeding stuffs.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his European counterparts about the setting up of an effective set-aside scheme.

  Mr. Richard Ryder
  Set-aside is operating effectively in the United Kingdom and I understand that the majority of member states have now introduced schemes. I welcome the European Commission's declared intention to open infraction proceedings under the treaty against member states which had not, by the end of 1988, met their obligations to apply set-aside schemes.

  Potato Marketing Board
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Potato Marketing Board; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Ryder
  Ministers meet the chairman of the board from time to time when necessary to discuss various aspects of the potato marketing arrangements.

  Farming (Diversification)
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department proposes to take to help farmers understand the impact of their attempts to diversify their business.

  Mr. Ryder
  On 9 January we launched "Planning Permission and the Farmer", which has been prepared jointly by MAFF, DOE and the Welsh Office and can be obtained through HMSO bookshops. This guide explains how the planning system works; describes some of the relevant provisions of planning legislation, and how to find out whether or not a project is likely to need planning permission; and suggests what can be done before, during and making a planning application to present a convincing case. Copies of a free leaflet will be sent with the February edition of the ADAS divisional bulletins. Any farmer in England and Wales who does not receive an ADAS bulletin and wishes to obtain a copy of the leaflet should contact their local divisional office. The leaflet will contain a brief description of the guide and also explain how to obtain a copy. Copies of the guide and the leaflet will be placed in the Vote Office.

  Wool Board
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Wool Board; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I met the chairman of the British Wool Marketing Board on 24 October 1988 to inform him of the Government's intention to abolish the guarantee price agreements for wool.

  Small Farmers Association
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Small Farmers Association; and what issues he expects will be discussed.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have no plans to do so at present, though I have frequent contact with all sections of the farming community.

  Unpasteurised Milk
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ban the retail sale of unpasteurised milk.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have no such plans at present.

  Farm Woodland Scheme
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will indicate what the initial reaction of farmers has been to the farm woodland scheme; and whether he expects his Department's uptake targets to be met.

  Mr. Ryder
  There has been a good level of interest shown by farmers in the farm woodland scheme. However, the scheme only opened on 1 October 1988 and it is too early to say whether the maximum total areas for planting over the three-year experimental period will be reached. My right hon. Friend will be issuing more details on the pattern of uptake later this month.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how fanning practices have changed in areas of the United Kingdom covered by ESA's since the scheme's inception.

  Mr. Ryder
  Farmers participating in ESAs agree to use farming practices which conserve the environmental features of the area. It is too early to make a full assessment of the effects of the scheme but I expect to publish a report shortly which will explain how the scheme is intended to affect farming practices in each area and indicate progress made so far.

  GATT (Review)
  Mr. Knowles
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the general agreement on tariffs and trade mid-term review in Montreal.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made to the House on 12 December 1988 by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, at column 400.

  Cod Quotas
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had about the 1989 North sea cod quotas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I took full account of the views of the Members of this House and the industry when I gave
  317
  my agreement to the total allowable catch (TAC) for cod in 1989 at the December Fisheries Council. I made quite clear that this agreement was subject to the TAC being reviewed if the biological assessment of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management in May 1989 indicates that this might be appropriate.

  Tenant Farmers Association
  62. Mr. Summerson:
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Tenant Farmers Association; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Ryder
  Although I have not yet met the chairman of the Tenant Farmers Association, I am glad to say that I shall be addressing the association's annual conference in February. In the meantime, the Department is in regular touch with the association on a wide range of issues.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with European Community Agriculture Ministers about the future of the common agriculture policy.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) on Tuesday 20 December 1988 about Agriculture Council discussions on a number of Commission proposals including the reform of the beef and sheepmeat regimes. These discussions continue.

  European Community Farm Animal Convention
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has as to disparity in practice in implementing the EEC farm animal convention in member states of the Community.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I take it that the hon. Member is referring to the European convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, elaborated in the Council of Europe rather than the European Community. It contains very general provisions, which contracting parties are free to implement in their own way, and I have no information about disparities in the steps they have taken.

  Farm Animals (Definition)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he has received concerning the proposed designation of farm animals as sentient under the treaty of Rome;

  (2) what plans he has to propose to the Council of Ministers that the treaty of Rome be amended in order to designate farm animals as sentient creatures;

  (3) what plans he has to press for a reappraisal of the status of farm animals within the EEC in the context of a single European market in 1992.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I am aware of suggestions that farm animals should be given a new status under the treaty, but have received no representations about this. It is clear, however, that the treaty already provides power to adopt farm animal welfare measures, and the European Commission is working on a number of new regulations 318
  within the context of the single European market. I therefore see no need to press for a change in the status of farm animals.

  Slaughterhouses
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of slaughterhouses in the United Kingdom conform to EEC standards for meat export; what proportion conform to United States Department of Agriculture standards for meat export; and what steps are being taken to raise United Kingdom slaughterhouse standards to the appropriate levels.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Approximately 10 per cent, of red meat slaughterhouses are currently approved for export to other EC member states. At present, these account for nearly 40 per cent, of the national throughput. All licensed poultry slaughterhouses have to comply with the relevant EC directive.

  As yet, no red meat slaughterhouses have formally applied for USDA approval although a number of companies have expressed an interest. One poultrymeat establishment has applied for, and been granted, approval to export to US.

  Officials of my Department are ready to advise all slaughterers on the conditions necessary for intra-Community trade or for export to the USA or any other country.

  Chlorine
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking on the three reports he is studying on the effects of chlorine on food and drink.

  Mr. Ryder
  I assume that the question refers to the possible occurrence of dioxins in food as a result of migration from paper-based packaging materials made from wood pulp bleached with chlorine.

  The data currently available indicate that the levels of dioxins in feed are extremely small and do not pose a hazard to health. However, as I indicated in an earlier answer to the hon. Member, my Department is presently carrying out a thorough investigation into this issue, including a programme of laboratory analysis. When the reports referred to are completed, we shall decide what further action is necessary.

  River Pollution
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of incidents of river pollution caused by farms' slurry in 1988.

  Mr. Ryder
  This information is not yet available, but will be contained within the 1988 report on water pollution from farm waste being compiled jointly by my Department and the Water Authorities Association. I will write to the hon. Member at the time of publication.

  Agrochemicals
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what current restrictions there are on tank-mixes of agrochemicals which farmers may apply to their crops; and if he will make a statement.
  319
  Mr. Ryder
  Ministers responsible for the control of pesticides have recently agreed that certain tank-mixes of pesticides should be prohibited. I refer my hon. Friend to the revised consent on use of pesticides which will be published in the London Gazette tomorrow.

  Food Acts
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to seek to amend the Food Acts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  In October 1987 my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary announced, on behalf of our colleagues in the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, DHSS and DHSS (Northern Ireland) our intention to update and streamline food legislation. Since then officials have been holding consultations with a wide variety of interested organisations to consider revisions to existing legislation. Consultations are now at an advanced stage and officials will shortly be reporting back to Ministers. Of course, the timing for the introduction of any new legislation must be subject to the other pressures on the parliamentary timetable.

  Rats (Farms)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he is giving to farmers to control rats in their farm buildings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Advice on rat control in farm buildings is provided by the Ministry's Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. Rat control is needed in order to prevent dangerous structural damage to electrical cables and buildings, to prevent damage to or contamination of stored foodstuffs and, particularly, to reduce risks of diseases being spread to people and livestock.

  Farmers should be aiming to remove any existing rats and to reduce the likelihood of further infestations. ADAS can provide advice on effective rat control practices including the appropriate choice of anti-coagulant pesticides, proper surveying of infestations, correct baiting procedures and measures for protecting non-target species. Additionally, farmers are advised on suitable preventative action including proofing of buildings and removal of harbourages. Ministry advisory publications on the subject are: "Keeping rats and mice out of farm buildings" (leaflet 627) "Control of rats on farms" (leaflet 608).

  Listeria
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the research projects he is funding into listeria monocytogenes and the research establishments where these projects are undertaken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  My Department is funding research projects on listeria monocytogenes. These projects form part of the extensive on-going research programme on food safety which my Department undertakes.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to reduce the incidence of listeria monocytogenes in raw poultry; and if he will make a statement.
  320
  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) on 17 January 1989 at column 159.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will be in a position to report on the results of his Department's studies into the temperature sensitivity of listeria monocytogenes.

  Mr. Ryder
  My Department expects to receive a report of this work next month.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide details of the studies commissioned by his Department into the temperature sensitivity of listeria monocytogenes.

  Mr. Ryder
  We have a substantial research project in hand on the heat treatment required to kill listeria monocytogenes in a variety of foods, in particular white poultry meat, red meat and carrots. Results of this work will enable us to ensure that the cooking conditions used in the manufacture of these foods are appropriate and allow adequate safety margins to be maintained.

  Sheepmeat Regime
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the implication for sheep farming in(a) Northumberland and (b) similar areas of current proposals for the European Economic Community sheepmeat régime.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  It is not possible to evaluate in precise details how the proposals would affect Northumberland or other areas in the locality.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list his statutory duties with regard to the provision of advice and information to owners and occupiers of sites of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Ryder
  Under section 33 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, I am required to prepare, jointly with other Ministers, a code of guidance on sites of special scientific interest for the benefit of the relevant authorities and for persons affected, that is, owners and occupiers of land in SSSIs.

  I have many other powers and duties to advise and inform owners and/or occupiers of agricultural land, which will include those that occupy land in SSSIs.

  US Secretary for Agriculture
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he met the new United States Secretary for Agriculture; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have met Mr. Yeutter, the Agriculture Secretary-designate, on a number of occasions in his capacity as United States trade representative, most recently at the mid-term meeting of the GATT round negotiations in Montreal in December. I look forward to meeting him in new capacity at an early date.

  Food and Farming Year
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans his Department has to take part in the Hyde Park festival of food and farming, to celebrate Food and Farming Year.

  Mr. MacGregor
  We are preparing a major exhibition for this festival, with the title "Our Land, Our Food". It will include the Ministry's own centenary exhibition, with the emphasis on quality and safety, and will demonstrate the inextricable links between the agriculture and fishing industries and food consumers.

  Chickens (Feedstuffs)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list each one of the plants processing and producing feeding stuffs for chickens which has been the subject of inspection by health officials, and indicate where such inspections took place, for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 17 January 1989]My officials routinely visit and inspect plants producing animal protein for incorporation into animal feedingstuffs including feedingstuffs for chickens, and take samples of their products for laboratory testing. Information on the identity of plants is held by my Department in order to carry out these operations as provided for by statute. It would be wrong to disclose such data for purposes other than those for which it was collected.

  Free Food Scheme
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total amount of(a) butter, and (b) beef allocated to each region of England under the European Community free food scheme for 1988–89, the total amount distributed to date and the total amount still undistributed.

  Mr. Ryder
  The allocation of produce in England for 1988, which was made to designated organisations rather than on a regional basis was 1,677 tonnes of butter and 570 tonnes of beef, all of which has been withdrawn from intervention store for distribution. The arrangements for local distribution is a matter for the organisations. for 1989,the Commission has recently notified member states of their allocations. In the United Kingdom up to 4,075 tonnes of butter and 2,975 tonnes of beef is available within a financial allocation of about £14·5 million. We expect to be consulting designated organisations soon.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the total number of applications and (b) the local authorities which made applications to distribute beef and butter under the European Community free food scheme for 1988–89 in each region of England.

  Mr. Ryder
  Excluding parish councils, there are approximately 400 local authorities in England, of which seven applied to participate in the surplus food scheme.

  Salmonella
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether there is a minimum acceptable percentage of salmonella contamination in poultry carcasses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  It is desirable that any bacterial contamination should be kept to a minimum, although salmonella is destroyed if poultry is cooked properly. Two codes of practice have been introduced for poultry breeders and hatcheries to minimise the risk of transmission of salmonella. In my reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) on 18 January I set out the further measures I am proposing to reduce the risk of transmission through breeding stock. Statutory hygiene controls are designed to avoid contamination during processing.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many investigations of salmonella species in poultry flock have been carried out in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Donald Thompson
  The Zoonoses Order 1975 requires that all isolations of salmonella from food poisoning animals are reported. Since April 1988, in response to the emerging human health problem associated with salmonella enteritidis, all reports of this salmonella have been investigated. The number of investigations carried out in flocks of fowls in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Number

  1984

  3

  1985

  3

  1986

  4

  1987

  5

  1988

  1 182

  1 provisional

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which species of salmonella have been found in the ovaries of poultry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Of the very many known salmonella species only the following species have been isolated from ovaries of poultry:

  Salmonella typhimurium

  Salmonella typhimurium var Copenhagen

  Salmonella enteritidis

  Salmonella heidelberg

  Salmonella menston

  Salmonella gallinarum

  Salmonella pullorum

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of vaccinating poultry against salmonella species; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A vaccine can only be effective against an individual species of salmonella, of which there are many hundreds. Vaccines are available against salmonella pullorum and salmonella gallinarum; both have been virtually eradicated from this country but the vaccines are used in other countries with some degree of success. Vaccines are not available for the control of other species of salmonella.
  323
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is carrying out into(a) the identification of salmonella species in poultry and (b) the vaccination of poultry against salmonella species; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department is currently funding a number of research projects including the development of a quick and simple blood test to detect salmonella enteritidis in live birds and the investigation of factors determining intestinal colonisation by salmonella. This includes studies of oral and systemic immunisation of poultry against salmonella.
  324
  Research work on the development of a salmonella enteritidis vaccine is being carrid out under a commercial contract at the central veterinary laboratory of my Department.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what criteria egg producers are able to label eggs salmonella free; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  As it is not feasible for the health status of individual eggs to be tested in a way which does not destroy them, claims that eggs offered for sale are free from salmonella may be open to legal challenge.

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

EC Transport Ministers' Council
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether air matters are included on the agenda for the informal meeting of the European Community Transport Ministers' Council to be held on 13th February, and whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to put forward any such items for discussion at that meeting.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we have not yet received an agenda for the meeting on 13th February. This is an informal Council and it is therefore entirely for the presidency to determine the agenda. However, I understand the presidency has indicated that it would like some discussion of air traffic control issues.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, that is a somewhat lukewarm response, but I should like to thank the Minister for having gone to the trouble to give us even that amount of information. I hope he is aware that my being troublesome and persistent in this matter gives him the excuse for being the same.
As regards his reply today, as air traffic control issues are to be discussed on 13th February, can he say whether it is expected that the Commission will table its proposals on the matter? As for the second part of my Question, which the Minister did not answer, is it at all likely that the Government will be putting forward any suggestions concerning a discussion on liberalisation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in reply to the second part of the Question tabled by the noble Baroness, of course we shall not hesitate to take the opportunity to put forward proposals on further liberalisation and to remind the Council to secure early progress on that issue. We are confident that the Commission will bring forward its proposals by the agreed date of 1st November.
As regards air traffic control matters, the Commission's proposals are being discussed at official level and are not yet ready to be put to the Council. However, we are not yet convinced that the Commission's involvement in air traffic control is necessary. As I have said before, we believe that ICAO and Eurocontrol should remain in the lead.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister will appreciate that we on this side of this House are giving full support to his efforts on Eurocontrol.
326
However, is there likely to be any discussion on the question of aircraft and airport security. either at this meeting or at a future meeting? Further, I should like to ask another question which I hope is not too far beyond the scope of the Question on the Order Paper. With regard to 1992, will there be discussions at some stage on the question of road haulage and also coastal cabotage?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, this is an informal Council and therefore it is for the presidency to decide the agenda for it. So far as I am aware the presidency does not propose to discuss aircraft or airport security.
As regards other measures which come before the Transport Council, we are indeed extremely anxious that progress should be made on the subject of cabotage and we shall be lobbying the presidency to that effect as soon as possible; and similarly on road haulage.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the Minister agree that not only the Government but also all air users should be most grateful to the noble Baroness for her constant questioning on this most important subject? However, can he say a little more about the Government's view on air traffic controllers? It appears to me that the delays which caused so much chaos last summer were, at any rate in part, due to troubles over air traffic controllers.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Baroness raises these questions at regular intervals. It gives me an opportunity to put forward the Government's views on liberalisation and other matters. Indeed, I do not think that there is very much between the noble Baroness and myself as regards our ultimate objectives.
Air traffic control problems are a different subject and I have answered many questions about them. There are problems at the moment which we have been seeking to address over the past year, and we shall continue to do so.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, in this happy atmosphere perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he is aware that I think I am in complete agreement with him about whether or not the Commission should have a hand in air traffic control. However, I am still somewhat puzzled by his answer because I think he told the House that it was anticipated that air traffic control would be discussed on 13th February. What I am not clear about is whether that is likely to be discussed on the 13th, without the Commission having tabled its proposals. If that is so, it seems a very odd position.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think the answer is that, being an informal Council, it is not a Council at which decisions can be taken but one at which subjects can be discussed.

Hearing Aids: Standards
3.5 p.m.
Lord Milverton Lord Milverton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration they are giving to ensuring that the standards of conduct among hearing aid dispensers in the private sector are improved.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, setting and maintaining standards of conduct among hearing aid dispensers in the private sector are the responsibility of the Hearing Aid Council set up under the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, have he or his department studied the paper of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf on hearing aids entitled A Case for Change? Does he agree that it might be a good idea if the issue of the amount of representation of the consumer was added to the Hearing Aid Council's agenda and that possibly a trial period of, say, 30 days, should be given to those in need of hearing aids?
Finally, is he, with his honourable friend in another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, and his department, really convinced that all possible doors are closed to dubious sellers who take advantage of the aged and the vulnerable? Further, will he thank his honourable friend for the letter he sent to me?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the council, which has been in existence for some 20 years, receives an average of about 70 complaints a year all of which are considered either by the registrar or the council's investigation committee. In the past four years three cases have been heard by the council's disciplinary committee and two further cases are the subject of an adjourned meeting.
I believe that the present system, subject to our looking at it further, holds the balance between trade and consumer interests. We are studying the matter to see whether there should be any changes.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those hearing aid dispensers and examiners who operate within the National Health Service should receive the highest praise possible for the wonderful work they do? Is he further aware of their deep regret that many of the products of British science which could help British people who are hard of hearing or nearly deaf are denied them because the products are not obtainable on the National Health Service? Does he not agree that anything which British scientists and British dispensers can produce should be available to all British people, irrespective of income.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord is doubtless aware that I am not the Secretary of State for Health. My responsibility is that I have some supervision over the private sector providers of hearing aids. That is the job of the Hearing Aid Council; that is the matter at which my department looks.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while the majority of suppliers appear to behave correctly, the Royal National Institute for the Deaf is most concerned about cases where individuals have been pressed into buying expensive hearing aids which are not suitable for them without any means of redress? Is he further aware of an impression that prevails that the disciplinary committee of the Hearing Aid Council, to which he referred, has only met once during the last three years?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, of course there are existing procedures under the British Code of Advertising Practice for those who advertise misleadingly. That code has now had statutory underpinning by virtue of the misleading advertising regulations which came into force last year and which are enforced by the Director General of Fair Trading.
I am aware of the fair hearing campaign which was launched on 1st November last year. That is being considered by my right honourable colleague the Secretary of State for Health. I am looking at the provision of private sector providers. We are looking carefully into the position at present.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware, or is his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health aware, that there is a good deal of concern about these unsolicited, unwanted and sometimes unwelcome visits from sales representatives? Such visits can sometimes be quite oppressive for the elderly when they are confronted in their homes. Will the Government consider whether some of the proposals for changes in the Hearing Aid Council which are contained in a Private Member's Bill in another place might not make the sort of improvements that have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords, we are aware of the proposals for a Private Member's Bill in another place which will slightly alter the balance in the constitution of the council. We are looking very closely at the validity of the number of complaints. At the moment some five members represent consumers on the existing council. They are the people to whom any complaints should be addressed; they should ensure that the council will take the necessary steps. It is a matter which we are considering. We have not yet reached a view, but I hope we shall be able to do so before much longer.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that if the most modern hearing aid, the type of hearing aid which is in the greatest demand by people with hearing difficulties, were available in the National Health Service hearing aid clinics, people would be much less dependent on the private sector? Will the noble Lord have a word with his right honourable friend and tell him that it is time that we looked again at the range of hearing aids available under the National Health Service?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I shall certainly draw this Question and your Lordships'

329
comments on it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. I have no doubt at all that he will read the comments carefully.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord for what he has just said. Is he prepared to point out that the views expressed on all sides of the House this afternoon require that every Briton be given the best that British science can produce in the way of hearing aids?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am receiving a slightly conflicting message: on the one hand, that we should dispense only British products, but on the other hand that we should dispense only the best of products. They may not in all cases always be the same.

Airports: Night Movement Restrictions
3.12 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What relaxations they intend to make next summer in the restrictions on night take-offs and landings at airports in South-East England.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government do not propose to relax the night noise restrictions at Heathrow and Gatwick next summer. At Stansted, where there are comparatively few night flights, the restrictions apply only to the noisiest types of aircraft. The case for relaxing these does not arise. A series of measures aimed at relieving air congestion this year is being implemented by National Air Traffic Services hut, in the event of widespread or prolonged disruption, the airport managers are empowered to exempt delayed flights from the quotas.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comprehensive reply. I ask whether it amounts to this: that in general the Government are not prepared to relax night landing restrictions save in difficulties and emergencies. However, they believe that they have some other method for dealing with the shortage of runways.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, our new night restrictions were introduced only last April after widespread public consultation. Our intention remains to see an improvement in the noise climate at airports. We do not wish to renege on promises made to the airport communities. Therefore we do not propose to alter our night noise regime. However, as I said in my original Answer, dispensations can be given in the event of widespread and difficult delays, and those will continue.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, do my noble friend the Minister and his department fully appreciate that if only British Rail provided adequate rail services to and from Prestwick airport, pressure on other airports would be relieved? If the ancillary air services could be improved the same would apply.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords. I think that Prestwick airport is a very different subject from the one on the Order Paper and one on which I have only recently written to my noble friend.

Justices of the Peace: Age Limits
3.15 p.m.
Lord Moran Lord Moran asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Lord Chancellor will not appoint anyone past the age of 60, and usually not past the age of 55, to be a justice of the peace, and whether they think it right that justices of the peace have to retire at 70 whereas judges are not required to leave office until they are 72 or 75.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I am prepared to appoint older people to the Bench from time to time, but it is very important that the Bench should be broadly representative of the community and should not present an elderly appearance. For the same reasons I would not favour raising the retirement age, which was fixed by Parliament in 1968.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. Did he see the letters published in The Times newspaper of 5th and 10th May last year from two retiring ambassadors? They wished to become JPs and were told by his department that they could not do so because they had reached the age of 60. Despite their experience and the fact that they would now have time to undertake those duties, they could not even be considered.
Is the noble and learned Lord aware that the Prime Minister, whose vigour appears entirely undiminished, is 63 and Mr. Bush, who, after a gruelling campaign, will be inaugurated tomorrow as President of the United States, is 64? As they are capable of discharging their immense responsibilities in their mid-60s, does the noble and learned Lord not think it curious that we should not allow men of experience and sagacity in their mid-60s to act as JPs?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I saw those letters in The Times from people to whom the noble Lord refers as "retiring ambassadors". Retiring ambassadors are unusual people. There is a retirement limit of 70 fixed by Parliament. As far as I know that does not affect the Prime Minister or President-elect Bush. We have to consider the expenditure that is put into the training of magistrates and we hope to get a reasonable return from it. The situation in which I am prepared to appoint people aged over 60 to the Bench is where, in order to complement the categories of people on the Bench, it is necessary to go to those lengths. For example, these days it is very difficult to find people who are in levels of manufacturing industry to go on the Bench during their working lives. It is important however that people with that kind of background should be on the Bench.
In situations like those I am prepared to go above the ordinary limit. I quite agree that there are not

331
many people with the credentials of ambassadors available, but on the other hand there are quite a number of people of lesser age willing to serve in most areas who could be regarded as very similar to ambassadors from the point of view of the ordinary person who may be appearing before the Bench.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that those over 60 are now a very large age group in our community? These are the days of young old people. If the noble and learned Lord wishes to make the Bench as representative as possible, he should have a fair proportion of these old people as magistrates.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we are talking about the date of appointment. I am fortunate that most people who are appointed to the Bench carry on until the age of retirement and therefore there is a very large number of magistrates who are coming up to 70, the age at which they go on to the supplemental list. So I believe that the balance of the community is very well represented in the present age structure.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord explain why the Government have appointed a noble Lord who is 69 years of age to be Vice-Chairman of the broadcasting commission whereas members of the Independent Broadcasting Authority are obliged to retire at the age of 70? Is that anomalous?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I find it a little difficult to see how that comes into the matters raised by this Question.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, on this delicate subject—especially in this House—of age and reference having been made to the Prime Minister, the sight of two eminent former Prime Ministers on the Benches opposite prompts me to inquire whether, if they were disposed to add to their services to the state service as justices of the peace, they would be disqualified on grounds of age.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord will have noted that the Parliament of 1968 of which the two distinguished noble Lords were Members fixed the age of retirement at 70.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does not my noble and learned friend agree that his real difficulty, given the limit within any one Bench to the number of magistrates it can appoint, is that there is always a problem finding a sufficient number of young people to balance the age proportion of those already sitting?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is right. That is certainly one of the difficulties. As I said, there are difficulties in particular sectors of the community in getting people to serve who are sufficiently young. Therefore, in the light of that kind of difficulty, I am prepared to
332
consider going beyond the normal practice of 55 or 60 as the maximum age for appointment.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that age is no indication of the quality of service which an individual can give? All noble Lords know people of 20 who are quite useless from the neck up, whereas we all know people—I, as a magistrate, know such people— of 70 who are absolutely useful in every way. Will the noble and learned Lord consider excluding age as the reason for accepting or rejecting anyone?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I entirely accept what the noble Baroness says as regards whether age is an indicator of fitness. I believe that to be generally acceptable. However, I have to operate, and I am sure the House would expect me to operate, within the structure that Parliament has laid down. Parliament has decreed that 70 is the maximum age. Within that criterion I have to consider getting reasonable service from people who receive induction training before they have to retire. It is for that reason that this general level of age was fixed a long time ago. My noble and learned friend, who asked a question just a moment ago, carried on that practice during his term of office. The provision is not intended to be any reflection on people of 70 or over. It is intended to give proper effect to the arrangements that Parliament made.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that one point he made in his substantive Answer is of dominating importance —that is, the appearance of the Bench? It should look broadly representative of the community, especially when so many offenders today are young people.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for those comments. That has been a cardinal point in my consideration of these matters since I have had responsibility for them. I know that it was also the case long before I took office.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, may there not be an occasion for looking at the problem of recruiting young magistrates in view of the practice now of fairly extensive training before they are appointed which unfortunately acts as a bar and an inhibition to some of the ablest people volunteering their services?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I consider these problems continually. I endeavour to obtain as much assistance as I can to overcome them. Recently I have written to industrialists to try and get their help as regards allowing people to be released for service. As the point has been raised, I must say that the responses have been extremely favourable. Industrialists regard magistrates' service as an important public duty. They will do their best to give support.

Business
3.24 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Children Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the National Maritime Museum Bill and the Agriculture Improvement (Variation) (No. 3) Scheme 1988 will be taken.

Children Bill [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LoRD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 26 [Care and supervision orders].
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 21, line 27, after ("person") insert ("or child").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to allow a child to apply for a care order. An older child and his or her parents may be undergoing particular difficulties at home which cannot be resolved. Sadly, local authorities may be forced to consider the cost of voluntary care and their decision is based upon the resources at their disposal. If a local authority decides that voluntary care is not appropriate, a child has no means to leave the family home. Surely the child in these circumstances should have the right to apply to be taken into care. It would then be for a court to decide whether care or supervision would be in the child's interest. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps, before coming to the substantive answer to my noble friend's amendment, I might be allowed to say that looking at the Marshalled List of amendments still to be dealt with I think we are making progress in the sense that there are fewer amendments on the Marshalled List today than there were when we started off at the beginning of the Bill some three Committee days ago. I have probably considerable responsibility for the fact that we are moving so slowly because, as the Committee knows, this Bill has been the subject of very careful consideration by a number of people. I have been anxious to try to set out fully all the arguments in answer to the various amendments that have been tabled. But one of the consequences is that we do not make very rapid progress. I feel I must do what I can to contribute to progress. I am sure that others may have perhaps a smaller part to play in that direction.
334
On the amendment, I cannot agree that a child should be able to apply for a care or supervision order in respect of himself. Care and supervision proceedings are very serious matters with major implications for the child himself, the parents and others with parental responsibility and, of course, the local authority or supervisor. It is important that the needs of a child are fully investigated before proceedings are brought—a responsibility which in almost all cases a local authority is best placed to meet—and, indeed, a local authority will have a specific responsibility under the Bill to take steps to reduce the need to bring care and supervision proceedings, for instance, by providing other services.
The Review of Child Care Law saw these as good reasons why care proceedings should usually, if not always, be brought by a local authority social services department. I shall not trouble to read out in detail what the review said. The Government accept the view that was taken on that point. It is, of course, always open to a child to go to a local authority and bring his situation to the attention of the authority. The authority then has the statutory duty to see that the child is properly looked after. So if there is a real problem, the basic structure of the Bill will require a local authority to do something about it.
Clause 17(3) makes specific provision for older children in need. It requires a local authority to provide accommodation for children over 16 if it considers that their welfare is likely to be seriously prejudiced if they are not provided with such accommodation. Clause 17(10) disapplies the right of a person with parental responsibility to object to, or remove the child from, such arrangements. For younger children it is, I suggest, more appropriate to rely on a local authority's responsibilities to provide services to children in need and investigate cases of harm or likely harm. I hope that the noble Lord may feel able to accept that as a reasonable explanation of the policy of the Bill.
Lord Mottistone: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for a full reply. In view of his earlier remarks I feared that everything might be abbreviated. I shall have to read the response with great care. I think that what my noble and learned friend said filled the gap, but I hope he will forgive me if at this stage I reserve the right to come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 21, line 31, at end insert—
("; or
(c) adjourning the hearing for a specified period of time to permit a programme of rehabilitation and giving directions to the implementation thereof.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to link Amendment No. 146 with Amendment No. 153 as I think that those amendments should be read together. Amendment No. 153 requires the court to consider the care plan for the child before making an order, and Amendment No. 146 would give the court

335
the power to adjourn the hearing to enable phased rehabilitation to take place. It also proposes that the court should be able to give directions as to how such rehabilitation should take place.
I should like to explain the background to the amendment. In the White Paper the Government state that there is no intention to involve the juvenile courts in deciding how the child is to be treated if and when he enters the care of the local authority. We feel that that is wrong for a number of reasons.
Under existing law enormous discretion is vested in the local authority decision-making, subject to its duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child in its care. That discretion is only limited by directions of the court if the child is a ward of court or subject to a care order in family proceedings. Orders in wardship are particularly flexible and may provide detailed requirements for rehabilitation of the child to its parents. That is certainly an advantage so far as concens children and parents.
The Bill proposes some limitations on the exercise of the local authority's discretion by providing for the presumption of access—as set out in Clause 29—and by establishing a complaints procedure. However, Clause 71 severely limits the opportunities for local authorities to invoke the wardship jurisdiction and provides that care orders may no longer be made in the wardship jurisdiction. Care orders in family proceedings will now have the same legal effect as in care proceedings. Thus the court will have almost no opportunity to direct the local authority in the exercise of its statutory duties. We find that worrying.
In our experience there are many cases at the time of hearing when social services have failed to make any constructive plans for the child and yet they are able to obtain a care order because it would not be appropriate for the child to return home. As significant is the inability of the court to act on the suggestions of the guardian ad litem about the care of the child. Since their introduction in 1984 guardians ad litem have greatly improved the standard of decision-making. We believe that to be the finding of the DHSS sponsored research at Bristol University, which has not yet been published.
Turning to care proceedings, legislation should provide that directions can be given by the court in all proceedings in which an application has been made for a care order. However, in light of what is said in the White Paper we would not expect the Government to agree to such an amendment. The amendment is therefore drafted as a pragmatic compromise. Phased rehabilitation is probably the most important matter that the court should decide. Even with the improved time-tabling proposed in the Bill a child is likely to have been in interim care for at least three months before the final hearing. Depending on the circumstances an immediate return home may not be in the best interests of the child. If the court takes the view that the child should return home to his parents but that it would be inappropriate for that to happen immediately, there is nothing it can do about it unless the local authority agrees to implement a programme of phased rehabilitation under the care order. Even if the local authority agrees to the proposition it is not
336
binding on it and many authorities are slow and unenthusiastic about rehabilitative work with families. The new provisions for contact may remedy that when rehabilitation merely requires increased contact with the family. In many cases, however, rehabilitation needs to take place in the context of a placement, such as mother and baby home or residential family centre, or with specific requirements such as psychiatric assessment.
The dilemma is particularly acute in applications to discharge care orders where the child may have been in care over an extended period of time. That was acknowledged by the Court of Appeal in Re J (a minor) (wardship jurisdiction) (1984) in which a mother was allowed to ward her child because the wardship court had the power to order a period of gradual rehabilitation remedying a lacuna under the statutory scheme. In that case, Lord Justice Cumming-Bruce said:
"In my view there is a lacuna in the statutory scheme which can only be filled by the legislator in order to complete the powers available to … the juvenile court under the statutory scheme".
The Review of Child Care Law recommended that there should be a power:
"to postpone discharge to allow for a gradual return of the child to his family over a fixed period of time, say 3 to 6 months maximum. Such a scheme would have to contain a right for the local authority to come back to the court and ask for rescission of the order if returning the child became in their view impracticable or put the child at risk".
The proposed amendment would also cover applications to discharge care orders in accordance with the provisions of Clause 35(5).
Turning now to Amendment No. 153, which I wish to link with Amendment No. 146, the Government have acknowledged in the White Paper that:
"it will be essential for the local authority to give the court an idea of their general plans for the child,".
The objective of Amendment No. 153 is to place a duty on the court to scrutinise the local authority's proposals so that it can properly consider whether to make an order. If dissatisfied with the amount of information contained in the plans there is no reason why the court should not adjourn the proceedings for fuller information to be supplied. We see that duty as corresponding with the court's duty in relation to access as set out in Clause 29(12).
I think that the effort to achieve a phased rehabilitation is important. I believe that it is linked to what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, tried to achieve earlier in the Bill in relation to plans for children in care. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will look favourably upon the amendments. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: It is convenient to take the two amendments together. Amendment No. 146 would allow a court to make a new kind of order in care proceedings which would adjourn the hearing and permit directions to be given for a programme of rehabilitation.
I have a number of reservations about that proposal. As at present rules of court will provide for adjournments where they are necessary, but I am particularly concerned that we should not encourage the use of adjournments because they cause delays which are generally unhelpful to the interests of the

337
child concerned. Where a court adjourns and an interim care order is made we have included provisions in Clause 33 to restrict the length of interim orders to ensure that the case is decided with the minimum of delay. As with Clause 10 in relation to private law applications, Clause 27 makes provision for time-tabling by the courts on applications for care and supervision orders. In addition Clause 27(1) provides that a court hearing an application for a care or supervision order shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in disposing of the application is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child concerned.
The amendment proposed would introduce an order specifically to create delay in the determination of the case. That would run counter to the principle underlying the various measures in the Bill which are aimed at reducing delays. In allowing the court to give directions concerning the implementation of rehabilitation it would also run counter to the philosophy behind the Bill that case management is a matter for local authorities not the courts. That point is fundamental. The responsibility for managing a case should lie with the local authority and if rehabilitation is appropriate that is for the local authority to decide.
Turning to Amendment No. 153, the Review of Child Care Law recommended at paragraph 16.9 that a general statement of plans should be:
"made available sufficiently early to allow the other participants to decide what action, including agreement, should be taken in the light of it before the hearing. That statement should he served on the parties and on any other participants as the court directs."
The Government fully accept that recommendation, and as I have said in response to earlier amendments, we shall be providing for that to be included in the detailed procedures which will be set out in rules of court at a later stage. I think that I said that in reply to an amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Faithfull.
Clause 1(4) of the Bill requires the court, before making an order, to consider whether making the order would be better for the child than making no order at all. We believe that that imposes on the court a duty to take account of the proposed arrangements for the child in reaching that decision. Other parties, who should generally have received the statement of plans in advance of the hearing, will have had an opportunity to comment on them.
I believe that in that respect the noble Baroness's concerns are properly catered for within the structure that we have provided in the Bill. The overriding duty which I mentioned in relation to Clause 1(4) would have the effect of imposing the duty on the court which she seeks.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may immediately follow up the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord at the introduction of this session of the Committee. I think that all Members of the Committee have their heart and soul in this Bill. We are all in favour of it. The only wish of the Committee is to improve the Bill. I do not think that anyone needs to apologise for the detail in which we are going through this legislation. Having said that, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord that short speeches are better
338
than long ones. I shall therefore endeavour to follow his example on this and other occasions.
As I understand it, the objection of the noble and learned Lord to the power given to the court—I emphasise the word "power"—to adjourn the proceedings to see whether rehabilitation in certain circumstances will apply can surely not be acceptable. Nobody is saying that the court shall do it. Are we to assume that in a suitable case in which the magistrates think that is the appropriate course to take some counsel will jump up and say, "Unfortunately Parliament did not give you the power"?
All this faith in local authorities is something of which, as a former local authority man, I approve; but the thought of having no faith in the courts is something for which the noble and learned Lord surely does not want to be responsible. If he wants to add the words "if it thinks fit" in an appropriate case to have the power to adjourn, I am sure that the mover of this amendment will have no objection to the addition of those words. This is a power to act in an appropriate case, and the court should have it.
Baroness David: I thank my noble friend for his warm support. I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord has taken some time to answer and has given me a detailed reply. I think the matter is important. I also appreciate that there is a great desire for speedy decisions to be made. Things should not be held up, but, on the other hand, if matters are hurried and we do not achieve a good plan, the situation may worsen as a result of speeding up matters. That would be a pity.
I think that the suggestion for a specified period of time (which need not be all that long) to permit a programme of rehabilitation to be set up—it would presumably be set up by the local authority—has a great deal to commend it. I do not want to press this matter now. I shall read very carefully what the noble and learned Lord has said. I suspect that I shall not be altogether convinced by it but I shall certainly read his remarks with great care. I reserve the right to come back on Report, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I must tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 147 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 147A to 152 inclusive.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 21, line 32, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied that the child concerned—

(i)

(a) has been or is likely to be ill-treated by a person having parental responsibility for him or who is living in the same household or such a person has failed or is likely to fail to take reasonable steps to prevent his ill-treatment by another, or

(b) his standard of health or development is or is likely to be significantly lower than that which can reasonably be expected for a child of his age and ability, and that this is attributable to the standard of care which he is receiving or is likely to receive, and

339

(ii) there is no other person, apart from the local authority. suitable to provide such care as will safeguard and promote the welfare of the child for the foreseeable future, and

(iii) the order contemplated is the most effective means available to the court of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of the child.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 147, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No. 156. Coupled together, these amendments seek to improve, without radically altering, the grounds on which a child may be taken into care as set out in Clause 26. The statutory correctness of the grounds on which a child may be taken into care is crucial to ensure that children who ought to be protected by a care order are covered by the statutory wording and also that children who should not be removed into care are safe from such removal. Further on in the Bill it is proposed to restrict the use of wardship jurisdiction as a long stop for children who otherwise cannot be taken into care. Thus the integrity of the grounds for care orders in Clause 26 is of great importance. There must be as few loopholes as possible.
There are three possible approaches to the criteria for care orders: first, a broad welfare test; secondly, a test which looks at the effect on the child of what it has suffered; and, thirdly, a test which looks at the cause of the suffering. Clause 26 concentrates on the causes of the child's suffering. It has been carefully drafted but Amendments Nos. 147 and 156 seem to offer an improvement. These amendments seek to employ the phraseology already used in the Bill but to improve it.
Let us look for a moment at what is wrong with Clause 26 as it stands. Subsection (2)(a) uses the phrase "significant harm"—a phrase that is vulnerable to considerable legal argument. All harm is significant to a greater or lesser extent. Further, the use of the word "harm" takes one on to the definition in subsection (8) of the clause, and that in turn leads to three further definitions in that subsection. That drafting shows just how hard it is to produce phraseology which is both comprehensive and concise.
Clause 26(2)(6) is joined to subsection (2)(a) by the word "and", showing that the requirements are cumulative. It requires the harm to be attributable. There must be doubt whether, for example, sexual abuse by someone such as an uncle who sees the child perhaps once a week can be said to be attributable to the standard of care given by a parent. There must be doubt also whether the clause will cover cases in which children suffer physical injuries the perpetrators of which cannot he identified.
Finally, Clause 26 does not cover the unacceptable risk type of case; namely, where the court is unable to find that sexual abuse has been proved to have taken place but feels that sexual abuse may well have taken place and that there is an unacceptable risk that it may happen again. That is the kind of case in which wardship is so useful as a long stop.
The clause is also questionable in that it asks the court to consider the hypothetical reasonable parent caring for a similar child. What is reasonable for a
340
parent in deprived financial and social conditions may not be reasonable in a middle-class background.
Amendment No. 147 seeks to address those problems. It separates the two distinct criteria which the Bill merges. Subsection (2)(i)(a) of the amendment describes the state of affairs, or likely state of affairs. Subsection (2)(i)(b) of the amendment deals with fault or attribution. The amendment adds two further requirements: in subsection (2)(ii) the court is directed to consider whether any other person can care for the child; in subsection (2)(iii) the court is required to consider any other means of safeguarding the child. That last point appeared in the interdepartmental report and in the White Paper but has been left out of the Bill.
Amendment No. 156 supplements the clause as it appears in either the Bill or the amendment by adding the concept of neglect. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: In the light of what the noble and learned Lord properly said at the beginning of these proceedings, I wonder whether it would suit the convenience of the Committee and make for speed if I were allowed at the same time to speak—in the spirit of those amendments—to amendments that have not yet been called; namely, Amendments Nos. 147A, 156A, 156B, 194A and 199G.
While appreciating all that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has so eloquently said, I must confess that my concern lies in the rather inhibitive wording of Clause 26 as it now stands. This is a most material point. I wonder whether the Committee would mind looking first of all at Clause 26(2) in which are set out the provisions as to when the court may make a care order or a supervision order.
The Committee will see in paragraph (a) that the court has to be satisfied that the child concerned has suffered significant harm. I shall come to the definition clause in a moment. However, perhaps the Committee would kindly pause there. When lawyers point out that much litigation can be caused by something contained in an Act of Parliament, everybody ought to listen very carefully because it is obviously contrary to a vested interest. The Law Society has pointed out its fear that this could give rise to a great deal of litigation and delay because someone could so easily say, "This is not significant harm. It is harm, but it is not `significant'."
In my submission that is made even worse when one reaches Clause 26(8) where "harm"—not "significant harm"—is defined. Members of the Committee will see in subsection (8) that,
" 'harm' means ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development".
The Committee may say, "Goodness gracious me, if one is satisfied that there has been ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development, that should be enough to make a care order especially when ill-treatment is later defined in the same subsection as including sexual abuse, and forms of ill-treatment which are not physical.
Unnecessary complexity—from the point of view of any court and the construction by any local authority or common or garden citizen—is increased

341
when one reaches subsection (9). Having defined "harm" as meaning
"ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development"
one has this subsection:
"Where the question of whether harm suffered by a child is significant turns on the child's health or development, the court shall compare his health or development with that which could reasonably he expected of a similar child".
Can we not simplify everything and provide the following: that there has to be satisfaction before making an order that the child concerned has suffered harm? What is harm? Harm is as defined in subsection (8). It means ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development. If there is any question of the court finding itself in some difficulty in relation to health or development, then one leaves in subsection (9) and provides, as does my amendment it is accepted that, where the question of whether harm is suffered by a child turns on the child's health or development, the court shall compare his health or development with that which could reasonably be expected of a similar child.
I ask the noble and learned Lord, for the sake of simplicity, the avoidance of doubt, and the avoidance of much litigation and delay, when he answers this amendment to consider leaving his clause in as it stands but omitting "significant" and altering subsection (9) in the way that I have just indicated.
The Lord Chancellor: I am certainly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for raising the possibility of discussing that group of amendments with this one. Amendment No. 148 of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, also deals with this matter. I believe that Amendments Nos. 149 and 152 of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, also deal with it. I do not know whether it is desired to approach these separately.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: If it can be done without embarrassment or incoherence it would be useful to have them considered as a whole.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: The only difficulty that I see is that on the one hand the amendments that are before the Committee now are designed to make more detailed and more particular the discretion to be exercised, whereas Amendment No. 148, which stands in my name, would make the discretion much simpler. For my own part I prefer not to move Amendment No. 148 until I have heard the argument on this group of amendments.
The Lord Chancellor: I am perfectly content with that. I thought that it might save a little time.
The grounds on which a care order are to be granted are fundamental to this Bill. They have been the subject of very considerable, caring consideration. The considerations were set out at some length in chapter 15 of the Review of Child Care Law and the review's conclusions were followed in the White Paper. In care proceedings at present, under Section 1(2) of the 1969 Act the court must be satisfied on one of several grounds and also that the child is in need of care and control which he is unlikely to receive unless an order is made. The
342
primary conditions, one of which has to be satisfied, include that the child's,
"proper development is being avoidably prevented or neglected or his health is being avoidably impaired or neglected or he is being ill-treated".
The review considered that the specific grounds in present legislation were open to broad construction and that the primary justification for the state to initiate proceedings seeking compulsory powers should be actual or likely harm to the child. We have adopted this as the primary condition in Clause 26(2)(a) but made clear that the harm should be significant.
Amendment No. 147 uses the terms "ill-treatment" and "impairment of health and development" which we use to define harm in Clause 26(8), but harm itself, and the requirement that it be significant, are lost. I believe that significant harm indicates the degree of ill treatment or impairment with which the court should be concerned and its removal would be unfortunate. I shall elaborate that in a moment. III treatment is not a precise term and could include, for example, instances of verbal abuse or unfairness falling a long way short of significant harm.
A further difficulty is that in contrast to the Bill neither of the two conditions proposed in the amendment provides for the child being beyond parental control. The parents may be taking all reasonable steps to prevent harm befalling the child but to no avail because the child ignores their efforts. It is doubtful whether under the conditions set out in the amendment the court could make a care or supervision order in those circumstances.
The second and third conditions in Amendment No. 147 will, I suggest, be met by the requirements on the court in Clause 1 of the Bill. As regards the second condition, noble Lords will recall that the check list in Clause 1(2), which applies to care proceedings, requires the court to consider among other things how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, are of meeting his needs. Thus the court is required to consider whether other suitable persons are available to care for the child.
The third condition in Amendment No. 147 raises again the issues we considered when debating Amendment No. 6 on 19th December. As I said then, we have provided in Clause 1 for two principles: in Clause 1(1) that when a court determines any question with respect to the child, the interests of the child are the paramount consideration, and in Clause 1(4) that the court shall not make any of the orders available to it unless it considers that to do so would be better for the child than making no order at all. The court must be satisfied that making the order is a positive step towards achieving the paramount consideration. These principles will apply to all proceedings covered by the Bill, including care and supervision proceedings. We think that setting these principles out separately in this way achieves what is intended by this part of the amendment with greater clarity than the approach which was followed originally in the White Paper. Of course, since the White Paper, a good deal of thought has gone into

343
preparing the Bill with the assistance of the Law Commission.
On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, mentioned about sexual abuse, sexual abuse outside the immediate family should be grounds for a care order only if there has been or there may in future be inadequate protection provided by the parents. Unfortunately it happens—most sad to say—that children who are being perfectly well looked after are subject to sexual abuse, perhaps because of something that happened on the way home from school or some matter of that kind. Sad things have happened. It would not be proper to have a care order in that situation. The parents could be the first to try to do their level best to prevent it occurring again. Mere sexual abuse outside the immediate family would not normally be a ground for a care order.
I now come to the point about significant harm. I have mentioned already the principal reason for it, but I should like to explain this. The source of Clause 26(2) is the review of child care law.
In paragraph 15.15 of the review it was stated:
"We consider that, having set an acceptable standard of upbringing for the child, it should he necessary to show some substantial deficit in that standard. Minor shortcomings in the health and care provided or minor deficits in physical, psychological or social development should not give rise to compulsory intervention"—
because that is what we are talking about—
"unless they are having, or likely to have, serious and lasting effects upon the child".
I hope the Committee will feel that this must be right. It is not proper to intervene on any level of harm. This is not to say that Clause 26(2)(a) is setting an exact requirement of repeated or serious injury or neglect of a child. Rather it speaks of significant harm; namely, that which, being more than minimal, indicates that compulsory care or supervision may be justified.
As part of the simplification that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, proposed, logically he proposed to take this word out of the later part of Clause 26(9). I believe that is right. The problem there is that if I have understood his amendment correctly—that is a serious reservation—he has taken out the question to which the court has to direct its attention. He has no question left to which the court would have to direct its attention in comparing the child's health or development with that which could reasonably be expected of a similar child. The purpose of asking that question in relation to health or development is to decide whether the harm in question is significant. If one removes the word "significant" one is left with Clause 26(9) which does not pose a question.
I believe that what I have said covers the use of the word "significant" in other places. I believe that the later amendments proposed by the noble Lord take the word "significant" out of the emergency protection order and the police protection order provisions. if I am right in this place it would be right to keep it in those places. If I am wrong by any chance in this place, it might be right to take them out in the other places.
4 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: With regard to significant harm, in addition to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—about which I am not entirely convinced that an argument might be adduced that there is harm but it is not significant—it seems to me that this word is entirely unnecessary. Indeed, it may be misleading in the circumstances mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, because there is a general principle of the law which applies to statutory construction as well as in other spheres which is almost always expressed by lawyers in Latin, but which really means that the law does not take any notice of matters which are insignificant. Generally, therefore, this word cannot do any good but it might do some harm.
On the more general point. I found when I read the Bill, and in particular the clause, that I formed the same impression which was evidently brought to the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that in an otherwise well-drafted Bill this is quite unnecessarily complicated. Instant redrafting is rarely successful and is almost always fatal when it takes place in the context of a parliamentary debate. I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend would undertake to go carefully through the clause with the draftsmen to see whether it can be considerably simplified.
Lord Mishcon: To obtain nine-tenths of the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is such a triumph that at this moment I am covered with appreciation of what he said and do not want in any way to detract from his support by criticising anything that he said.
However, to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor I say this. It is not good enough, I believe, merely to dismiss the argument that there could be no unnecessary litigation because the word "significant" is in the Bill. I ask the noble and learned Lord to consider the case of a parent who is extremely angry that a care order has been made. I ask him to consider that parent going to a lawyer for advice as to whether the order can be upset. If the Bill remains as it is with "harm" in it, a definition of "harm" by the alteration of subsection (9) in the way that I have indicated and taking out the word "significant", no lawyer worth his salt would advise that that could be appealed against unless there was evidence that there was no harm of any kind at all such as was defined in the Bill.
Any lawyer who was anxious to assist the parent could say immediately that the court had no power to make that order because Parliament so directed, unless that harm was significant. We can go into all the evidence produced to the court and say that the court had no right to do it in this case because the harm was not significant and no reasonable court ought to have found that it was. In those circumstances we can have a protraction of proceedings and have a result that none of us wants to achieve.
Let us look at this perfectly logically. The matter is before the court. Harm is proved to the satisfaction of the court on my definition. I repeat that I speak with the voice of the Law Society on this occasion as well and therefore deserve much more merit than if I were speaking on my own behalf alone. The harm

345
which the court has to find means ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development. No court will make an order unless the ill-treatment is such that it is anything other than minimal. I adopt what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said in that context. When it concerns health or development, where there could be some doubt, it is there that I leave in subsection (9), knocking out the word "significant", and tell the court exactly what it ought to do. We take a normal case of a normal child and see by way of comparison whether we consider that the health and development point is properly proved within that definition.
I hope that in a serious matter of this kind no one would expect me to seek to divide the Committee on such an issue when we are all trying to get the words right, not to achieve victories or defeats—especially not defeats. In those circumstances I invite the noble and learned Lord—I repeat to him that I have a body of opinion behind me of his colleagues in the law —to consider very carefully the points that have been made in relation to this matter. If he will indicate that he will do so, when my turn comes I shall not move the amendments which stand in my name.
The Lord Chancellor: I appreciate entirely what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. It was that a lawyer may argue that the word "significant" is unnecessary because it is already implied. In other words, if the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is given effect to, it will make no difference. Bearing in mind the fact that we wish to direct the Bill to people who may not be lawyers, I believe it is right that it should be included.
It is easy to remove the word and then make impregnable any court order for intervention on appeal, however trivial the harm may have been. In effect, the noble and learned Lord is arguing in favour of that, because he is saying that it will not be open to argue that the harm was so trivial that nothing should have happened. That is the purpose of taking out the word and one cannot have it both ways. With the greatest respect, I know that some lawyers make a good effort in that direction but it must be one thing or the other.
The fundamental point is that state intervention in families in the shape of the local authority should not be justified unless there is some level—"significant" is a good word for it and, in any event, it is implied by the general law—at which significant harm is suffered or is likely to be suffered.
I always consider everything that is said in your Lordships' House but I do not want to give an impression that I have come to the view that the word "significant" should come out. I always consider everything that is said but I do not wish to encourage any belief that I may come back to take it out.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Surely elimination of the word "significant" in the context of subsection (8), where harm is defined as meaning:
"ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development",
and where ill-treatment is later defined as including:
"sexual abuse or forms of ill-treatment which are not physical",
346
is not a trivial matter. It is a grave matter but it is already provided for in what will remain if my noble friend's amendment eliminating the word "significant" is accepted.
The Lord Chancellor: That is incorrect, particularly in relation to the impairment of health and development. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, agrees that a question of amount or significance, and the extent to which there is a deviation from a reasonable norm, exists in that connection. With the greatest respect, I believe that on this occasion the noble and learned Lord is not quite right.
Lord Banks: The noble and learned Lord prefers the text as it stands in the Bill and in his opening remarks indicated his regret at the loss of the words "significant harm". I believe that I now understand him to say that he is coming round to the point of view that the word "significant" should be eliminated—
The Lord Chancellor: No, I am not.
Lord Banks: At any rate, that was the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
The noble and learned Lord made a series of other points, including the important point about sexual abuse outside the family. I should like to consider that and the other points that he made to decide whether to pursue the amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 147A:
Page 21, line 34, leave out ("significant").
The noble Lord said: I was disappointed with the noble and learned Lord's indication that even though he will read what has been said his mind is against what I regard to be a most important amendment. I say that having in mind what a future court may do and the trouble that the word may cause. The noble and learned Lord did not give me what I wanted, which was a moderate reaction. It is with real hesitation that I seek the opinion of the Committee.
4.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 147A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 124.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

David, B.

Airedale, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Dormand of Essington, L.

Ardwick, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Banks, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B. [Teller.]

Blease, L.

Falkland, V.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Fisher of Rednal. B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Foot, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

347

Grimond, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Rea, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hughes, L.

Serota, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Shackleton, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Jeger, B.

Stallard, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mais, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mishcon, L.

Underhill, L.

Molloy, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Phillips, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Willis, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Ilchester, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Arran, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Joseph, L.

Attlee, E.

Killearn, L.

Auckland, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lawrence, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Lyell, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Birdwood, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blatch, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Blyth, L.

Marley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marsh, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mottistone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cockfield, L.

Nelson, E.

Coleraine, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Onslow, E.

Crathorne, L.

Orkney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pender, L.

Daventry, V.

Pennock, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Penrhyn, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dundee, E.

Effingham, E.

Portland, D.

Ellenborough, L.

Pym, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Reay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Renwick, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Rochdale, V.

Faithfull, B.

Rodney, L.

Ferrier, L.

Rugby, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gainford, L.

St. Germans, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gisborough, L.

Seebohm, L.

Grantchester, L.

Selborne, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gridley, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Haddington, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Somers, L.

Strange, B.

Hanworth, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hayter, L.

Terrington, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hesketh, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hives, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hood, V.

Trafford, L.

Hooper, B.

Tranmire, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trefgarne, L.

348

Ullswater, V.

Wise, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Worcester, Bp.

Westbury, L.

Young, B.

Winstanley, L.

Young of Graffham. L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 21, line 36, leave out paragraph (b) and insert ("is in need of care or protection").
The noble Lord said: When I first read Clause 26 subsection (2) it was not paragraph (a) which caught my eye but paragraph (b). Paragraph (a) in its use of the word "significant" appeared to me to give protection to the individual before so drastic an order interfering with the liberty of the individual as a care order might he made. Of course there are few interferences in family life by the state more drastic than those which flow from a care order. I believe that a warning is given to magistrates' courts that they should not make such an order lightly. On this point I am fully persuaded by my noble friend Lord Mishcon and I move on to paragraph (b).
The purpose of the amendment, and standing the argument on the previous amendment, which was rightly moved as a separate argument, is to suggest that the exercise of the court's discretion is being made needlessly complex by the addition of paragraph (b). The court's discretion is being made needlessly complex and I suggest that it should be left as simple as possible.
The apparent advantage of the provisions which stand is to require the court to apply a uniform test before any order can be made. Perhaps that misses the point that all orders in this sphere are discretionary and so the importance of any formal test is diminished. This amendment simply prevents the court from making a care or supervision order unless it is satisfied that the child concerned has suffered significant harm or is likely to do so. Once that test is satisfied, it will permit the court to make a care or supervision order if it takes the view that the child is in need of care or protection.
That was the original test set out in the 1933 Act, which worked very well. Perhaps I may say that I have often heard the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in other contexts say, when discretionary powers were being considered and when it was suggested that they should be put in as some sort of formalised straitjacket, that very often the path of wisdom is to leave them as general as possible.
One has paragraph (a) but then paragraph (b) provides that the establishment of significant harm or the likelihood of it is not enough. This significant harm or its likelihood must be attributable to:
"the standard of care given to the child, or likely to be given to the child if the order were not made, being below that which it would be reasonable to expect the parent of a similar child to give to him".
One wonders what courts will make of that. Does it mean that if similar children from the same neighbourhood and background can be thought to suffer neglect to some degree, then it would not be reasonable to expect a higher standard from the

349
parent in question so that, although the child suffers significant harm, such significant harm is not attributable to any lower standard of care given by the parent in question because all children in that neighbourhood with that background are being treated in broadly the same way? It would obviously be highly unsatisfactory if any argument of that character based on that provision were to be addressed to a court and it had to adjudicate on that.
Surely it is better to have a simple, easily understood test. Once significant harm or its likelihood is established, should not the simple question be: is the child in need of care or does the child need protection? If the answer is yes, then the court can consider, as a matter of discretion, whether to make a care or supervision order. If the answer is no, that is the end of the matter.
The purpose of this amendment is to raise for consideration whether or not paragraph (b) makes matters needlessly complex. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): I must point out that, if this amendment is carried, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 149 to 151 inclusive.
Lord Prys-Davies: Perhaps it will help the Committee if I now speak to Amendment No. 149, because that goes along with the emphasis which my noble friend placed on the need for protection. We believe that it is important that the word "protection" should be inserted in the subsection to ensure that the court considers not only the care available to the child but the degree of protection which will be available to him.
Indeed, we are reminded by the British Association of Social Workers that it is important in this context that regard be paid to protection, because whether a child suffers harm depends not only on the standard of care available to the child but also on the ability of the parent or those with parental responsibility to protect him from harm. A parent may offer a reasonable standard of care, yet perhaps because of difficult marital relationships be unable to guarantee the protection of the child.
Nowhere in the clause is there a reference to the need for protection, so the duty to consider protection, if it exists at all, is an implied one. However, given the need for Parliament to give precise indications of its intentions, we submit—and here we have the support of the British Association of Social Workers—that it is safer that the need to consider the standard of protection should be spelt out in the clause.
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I think it is convenient to take these two matters together in the sense that they link more closely than with the previous amendment. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, that here there is authorised one of the most important interventions in family life by the state. Therefore, one must be careful.
I entirely agree that I have often said that where discretion is given it is wise to make it as flexible as
350
possible. However. I do not think that that is an appropriate approach where the discretion will allow one of the most serious possible interventions in family life. Therefore, I think it is necessary to specify the grounds with reasonable particularity. That is what we seek to do in the Bill.
The real crux of Amendment No. 148, and the point between us, is to trace the exposure to harm, either past or anticipated, to something to do with the parents. If the harm is outside it is not a question of substituting for the parent —I shall come to the protection point in a moment—but to trace a connection between the parent and what is going wrong. It is fair to say that in one sense the proposed words,
"in need of care and protection",
do not add anything, in that it will always follow, I suggest, that a child who has suffered significant harm or is likely to suffer such harm will be in need of care or protection.
Secondly, Clause 1(4) is once again relevant, in that the court will have to decide whether it is better for the child for the court to make an order the effect of which will be to provide care and protection. Thirdly, the effect of leaving out paragraph (b) would be to remove the causal condition, which I suggest is most important. That is the same point as I sought to make a moment ago. The state should not be interfering in this way in the lives of families and young children unless it is clearly established that the harm, or likely harm, to the child, is attributable to the child not being provided with a reasonable standard of parental care or his being beyond parental control.
Where that is not the case, there should be no question of the local authority seeking to obtain parental responsibility. The purpose of this care order is to substitute the local authority for the parent in the sense of the local authority having parental responsibility for the child. That should only happen where something concerning the parent has gone wrong. That appears to me to be essential. Therefore. the part of paragraph (b) referred to is of vital importance.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, questioned the latter part of this provision. We shall he dealing with that again later, on an amendment in connection with background. It is notable that background is not dealt with in this clause. It refers to "parent of a similar child". The purpose of that is to fix on the particular qualities or attributes—or whatever one prefers to call them; I think "attributes" is used in later amendments—of the child.
A good example is a child who has a particular deficiency, perhaps brittle bones. If a child has a deficiency of that nature—proneness to accident because of brittle bones—one would expect the parent to give particular protection. The reasonableness is not related to any neighbourhood, or anything of that kind. There is no suggestion in the clause, and certainly none is intended, that one should look at what the parents are doing in the neighbourhood and if they are all on the same level one takes that as the level. The standard of reasonableness is a general standard. The reference to a similar child is to focus on the fact that the child

351
may require different aspects of care according to his personal qualities or difficulties.
I now refer to Amendment No. 149. Care in the ordinary sense means looking after the child, which must include protecting him. The word "care", which is extensively used in the Bill, bears its full everyday meaning. I do not think that it would be thought in the ordinary use of language that a parent was taking proper care of the child if the child was being exposed to unnecessary risk. It is in that sense that the word "care" is used.
We use the word "protection" in Part V of the Bill but in that respect we are dealing with a limited form of care for children in emergencies where protection is required. It is involved in care but it is a special aspect of care. Therefore, I venture to submit that "care" is a word that covers protection. However, it may be necessary in some circumstances, as in Part V, to single out for special treatment that aspect of care which is called protection.
I hope that in the light of those considerations the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, will feel able to withdraw his amendment and that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies will agree not to move the amendment he has spoken to.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: The explanation given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in reply to my Amendment No. 148 persuades me and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 149:
Page 21, line 37, after ("care") insert ("and protection")
The noble Lord said: I am grateful for the assurance of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the word "care" includes "protection". We were a little uneasy about that and wondered whether we should introduce the word "protection" into the clause. However, in the light of that assurance I do not propose to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 21, line 39, leave out ("the parent of a similar child to give to him")
The noble Lord said: There is a great deal of unhappiness about the phrase "parent of a similar child". It is felt that it could invite invidious comparisons. By what test is the court to judge the similarity for the purpose of this subsection?
The Bill is silent as to the meaning of the phrase. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in dealing with Amendment No. 148, has dwelt on what he has in mind. However, the amendments before the Committee differ considerably on the meaning to be attached to the phrase. Amendment No. 147 refers to a child of a similar background. Amendment No. 156ZA, tabled by my noble friend Lady David refers to "a child of similar attributes". That is the phrase to which the noble and learned Lord referred.
One feels that if the court is to be constrained—and I think it must be a matter of constraint—by the concept of "parent of a similar child" then that concept needs to be defined in the Bill, as my noble friend Lady David suggests in Amendment No. 156ZA, or defined in regulations. However, Amendment No. 150 would delete the comparison, leaving the court to concentrate on whether the child is suffering harm, having regard to the circumstances pertaining in that regard. It appeared to me that my noble friend Lord Irvine supported our Amendment No. 150, in that it should be left to the court to address itself to the circumstances of the child whom it is considering. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should point out that if this amendment is carried, I cannot call Amendment No. 150A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock.
Lord Kilmarnock: Perhaps it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to that amendment which bites on the same line and touches on the same subject matter. The amendment seeks to bring greater clarity—I think I heard the noble and learned Lord refer to the need for greater specificity—to the grounds for taking care proceedings and to reduce the likelihood of an order being made on inadequate grounds. After all, the aim must always be to ensure that the removal of children from their natural parents takes place only as a last resort.
Amendment No. 150, to which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has just spoken, has to some extent the effect which I am seeking in that it removes all the words after "reasonable to expect". But I should like to suggest to the Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that this amendment is clearer and more explicit. In its present form the Bill sets out that the court may make a court order if it is satisfied.
"that the child concerned has suffered significant harm, or is likely to suffer such harm; and that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to—

(i) the standard of care given to the child, or likely to be given to the child if the order were not made, being below that which it would be reasonable to expect the parent of a similar child to give to him".

The phrase "a similar child", as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has already pointed out, is open to a range of meanings. It could simply apply to age and sex. It might mean similar IQ. It could include similar ethnic origin, and so on. I suggest that this is an unsatisfactory phrase to have in the Bill.
The proposed change of wording in this amendment to,
"the standard of care given to the child, or likely to be given to the child if the order were not made, being below that which it would be reasonable to expect the parent of a child of similar background to give to him",
would make it much easier for such a comparison to be made. I repeat the phrase "child of similar background". The standard of care that it would be reasonable to expect from the parent cannot be confined to some abstract ideal norm. That may be desirable in theory and intention but in practice it may simply not be possible to achieve, given the

353
inequalities which exist and which are always likely to exist to some extent in society.
For example, the vast majority of children who go into care are from single parent families. On average, such families have 40 per cent. less income than the average family. Their children's standard of clothing or even of nutrition may not be as high as in normal families and their education opportunities may be more restricted. This does not mean that a decent attempt to achieve the highest standards consistent with circumstances are not being made, though these are not likely to be as high as those enjoyed by what the Bill loosely describes as a "similar child" from a higher income home.
Equally, one can imagine that a family of gypsies—travellers as they are sometimes called—would not be able to provide the same standard of care to a child as a family in a fixed home. However, the family bonds of gypsies are notoriously strong even if some of their customs are different from ours. It could be extremely damaging unnecessarily to remove a child from such a background. The logic of these arguments is that the standard of care expected should not be measured against an abstract norm but should make some allowance for the social, economic and cultural circumstances of the family.
The proposed amendment would achieve this by reducing the likelihood of the wrong comparison being made by the court. As the Bill is drafted, if the parent in question were a lone parent, dependent on benefits and struggling to make both ends meet, the courts could make a comparison with the standard of care provided by a family not dependent on benefits. This could result in children being removed from their parents on grounds of symptoms of economic distress such as inadequate heating or clothing, whereas the proper response would be a speedy application to the social fund under social security legislation. The amendment is entirely consistent with the importance attached by the Government to the family as a unit. I hope that it will be accepted as a small but not insignificant improvement to the Bill.
Baroness Faithfull: I should be grateful for some clarification from the proposers of the two amendments. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, refers to a "child of similar background". I interpreted the word "similar" to mean that one should look after a mentally handicapped child in a way different from the way in which one would look after a normal child. For instance, one would not allow a mentally handicapped child to run out and play in a playground four floors down, whereas one might allow a similar child who was not mentally handicapped to do so. I would be worried about the word "background". What seems unkind to the child in one case would not be unkind in another. What is right for one child may not be right for another. In the case of two mentally handicapped children, one would keep them in and not let them run about. For two other children one might allow them out to play. I should like clarification from the proposers of the amendments.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am happy to assure the noble Baroness that her comparison is precisely what is contemplated in the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope that it will not be considered presumptuous if I say that I like neither the phraseology in the Bill nor any of the amendments. No two children are similar in every respect. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor earlier made it clear what he had in mind but I do not think that that is expressed in the Bill. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, invokes far too wide social considerations which are irrelevant in this respect. My objection to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is similar in that it mentions "a similar child". My noble and learned friend made it clear that he had in mind the case of a child with a peculiar disability. One should compare that with another child with the same disability. I do not believe that the words of the Bill are apt to do that and do not invoke comparison in that way.
I repeat my earlier plea that my noble and learned friend should look again at the wording and the draftsmanship of the whole clause.
Baroness David: I wonder whether, when he comes to reply to Amendments Nos. 149 and 150, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will comment also on Amendment No. 156ZA which tries to improve the Bill in a different way. I need not enlarge on that point but it would be interesting also to have his comments on that amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: I can deal with that matter quickly. If I had to make a choice of all the amendments, I would be for Amendment No. 156ZA, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady David. If necessary, it elaborates the meaning that I have in mind. I certainly do not find acceptable the reference to the "child of similar background". I do not think, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that it has the effect that my noble friend Lady Faithfull had in mind.
For example, there might be two children, both of travelling people; and one child may have a mental handicap, and the other may not. The fact that they are both of similar background in the sense that she explained—namely, that they are both children of gypsies—does not mean that the standard of care required, the nature of care required in respect of the two, should be the same.
What is in mind here are the attributes of the child relevant to care, or the qualities of the child, or the description of the child relevant to caring for the child. With the greatest respect to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I believe that that is the meaning to be attached to the word "similar" in this clause. The context in which this appears is the context of care for the child, and it is similarities and dissimilarities relevant to the standard of care that is in question. The broad requirement that,
"it would be reasonable to expect the parent of a similar child to give to him",

355
appears to me to show that it is qualities in the child, aspects of the child's physical, mental or emotional state that require to be reflected in the child's care. That is what is in issue.
The first amendment to which the noble Baroness's name is also attached (No. 150) takes that out altogether. I believe that that would be a mistake. It would not point out sufficiently—and we are trying to make this fairly precise—that two children with different problems require different standards of care. It is desirable to point that out, and if it comes out altogether that is what this phrase would fail to do.
I have said what I have to say about the question of background. It is certainly not what I have in mind, and I do not believe that it is the right test at all. It might imply distinctions that were quite invidious in relation to the standard of care. What the local authority has to look at, and the court has to look at, is whether there is harm resulting from a deficit in the appropriate care that is in question.
Regarding Amendment No. 156ZA, my impression is that it is not necessary in the situation that we have here. Ordinary people reading this in the context in which it appears would understand the phrase "a similar child." "Attributes" is a long word which tends to have some philosophical—
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Quality.
The Lord Chancellor:—quality and connotation. That is certainly where I first learnt most clearly about it. I doubt whether it is necessary.
My noble and learned friend says that he does not like any of this phraseology. Of course I well accept that no phraseology is absolutely perfect. All I can say is that this phraseology has been adopted after considerable care. We have faced this as an important issue, because on the one hand we are permitting interference with family life, and it should only be done in carefully defined circumstances. On the other hand, we want intervention to take place where that intervention is demonstrated to be necessary on the basis of harm, or anticipated harm, sufficiently significant to justify intervention, and traced to deficiency in parental care or loss of parental control.
The care that a parent gives to his child must relate to the circumstances attributable to that child in the sense of physical, mental and emotional characteristics. Of course if anyone can suggest a real improvement, I would be happy to consider it. However, I regret to say that so far I have not seen any phrase that commends itself to me as a plain improvement on what, after a good deal of consideration, we have here.
Lord Mishcon: The noble and learned Lord has called for a suggested improvement. Might I, in one sentence, ask him whether he sees any objection to the simple words, "the parent of such a child to give to him". We then avoid all the argument about "similar", and "such a child" means all the qualities, all the attributes, all the handicaps, because they are of that child. The words would read:
"to expect the parent of such a child to give to him".
356
The noble and learned Lord may think that the simplicity of those words covers a lot of the matters that we have been debating.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I did not address myself to Amendment No. 156ZA because I thought that that would be anticipation. I certainly adhere to the view that "similar child" without anything more is not enough. I have a little hesitation about the word "attributes" in 156ZA, but in my submission to your Lordships the words need some definition. We now have another suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I think we are all hesitant about instant drafting. I would again make the plea to my noble and learned friend to reconsider the drafting, and in particular to consider the desirability of Amendment No. 156ZA or some slight modification of it.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I should like to lend my voice in support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and suggest that serious thought should be given to expanding the language in terms of Amendment No. 156ZA. I was persuaded to withdraw Amendment No. 148 by the explanation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the provision as it stands, properly construed, bore the meaning that he advanced.
In all probability, that is correct; but it must be plain from the discussion that there is an ambiguity because views in this Committee have varied as to whether what was contemplated were attributes, or background, or both. The provision as it stands therefore appears to be capable of being productive of confusion at the low level, in the magistrates' courts, where this matter may often have to be applied.
As to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, I should have thought that it would be wrong to bring in background because that would bring in two standards of care according to means. There should he one standard of care which has regard to the characteristics of the child; the presenting characteristics of the child that actually call for care. The language of Amendment 156ZA is the one that gets closest to making that meaning precise. I agree that we should not draft on our feet in Committee, but one in no way derogates from an acceptance that the draftsman has thought about this very carefully by suggesting that further thought could produce more precision.
5 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I wonder whether I may make a short intervention. Most noble Lords are practised in the law. The people who will put this Act, as it will be, into court are not practised in the law. They are practical people. I hope, through the noble and learned Lord, that this Bill will go out in such a way that people can understand it, that it will be in ordinary English, that it will be sufficient to help a court to decide what to do and that, as the noble and learned Lord said, it will not be the case that everything must be very precise, to use his words.
I must ask the Committee to give enough flexibility to people who are not learned in the law, but who are learned in practical life and in dealing with children.

357
Each individual child is different and has to be treated differently. I hope that the Bill will not make the position so complicated that an ordinary person like myself cannot possibly understand it.
The Lord Chancellor: The sentiment just expressed by my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve is precisely the reason why I feel that the words we have are perhaps preferable. I think that the description in Amendment No. I 56ZA, the one about attributes, is certainly along the line that I have in mind as the construction of the phrase "similar child". This is obviously extremely important and certainly I shall consider it with the draftsman. I have that very much in mind.
At the moment I have to say I am inclined to think that we may not be able to improve on these words without the risk of bringing in rather more technical words. The word "attributes" is perhaps a rather more technical word. But certainly the sense that I am aiming at is the sense covered in that amendment and we shall consider the matter further. I hope that in the light of that we may be able to move on.
Lord Mishcon: I hope the noble and learned Lord will consider the simple words, "such a".
The Lord Chancellor: I was not meaning to leave that out. I was simply saying that the phrase "similar attributes" has the right sense from my point of view. We will consider all that has been suggested, including that mentioned by the noble Lord.
Lord Prys-Davies: In the course of the last 25 minutes at least three different meanings have been attached to the phrase. This suggests that clarification is desirable, even for the magistrates. Otherwise there could be here a fruitful source of difficulty. I am content with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said. This matter will be reconsidered, and I very much hope that either the amendment of my noble friend Lady David or the words suggested by my noble friend Lord Mishcon will be acceptable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 150A:
Page 21, line 39, leave out ("similar child") and insert ("child of similar background").
The noble Lord said: In view of the noble and learned Lord's undertaking to reconsider this section of the Bill with the draftsman, I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 150A not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 21, line 41, at end insert ("or
(iii) the child concerned is of compulsory school age and is not being properly educated").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 151 I should like to take with it Amendments Nos. 164 and 166 to 169 inclusive. These were not so grouped this morning, but I hope that the message got through in time to the noble and learned Lord
358
that this was the way I thought it best to deal with them.
The amendment is designed to test the possibility of re-incorporating supervision orders made on school non-attendance grounds into the main stream. It would give a local authority the choice of assigning an education welfare officer or a social service department social worker according to the needs of the case. Truancy is not a simple matter and the child and his family may need a great deal of skilled help, including psychiatric treatment in some cases of school phobia.
It appears to be the intention of the Government to re-orientate the school welfare service towards enforcing school attendance. While there may be a place for such activity there is need for a range of options to be available. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has been worried that welfare education officers were being pushed by the Department of Education and Science. Indeed, we had a meeting there which we both attended. I hope that she will be sympathetic to the amendment which tries to widen the possibilities for these children.
To limit supervision order responsibilities to the education authority would potentially restrict the opportunities for maximum flexibility in dealing with a child. Such a step would either require education departments to build up an alternative social work force encompassing a wide range of skills and knowledge, or failing that to make the arrangements for delivery of particular kinds of treatment more beset by bureaucratic boundaries.
The simple solution, therefore, would be to make it possible for supervision orders to be made on educational grounds by amending Clause 26 with the words in Amendment No. 151 and by echoing this in the more detailed references to education supervision orders in Clause 31 where on various occasions the word "education" is deleted. It would then read "local authority" instead of "local education authority", enabling the local authority to use either its educational welfare workers or its social workers.
It may be argued that full supervision orders should not be made on purely educational grounds. The proposed amendment accepts that argument by retaining subsection (2)(a) of Clause 26 in relation to supervision for non-attendance. So it would be necessary to demonstrate that the child has suffered significant harm or is likely to suffer such harm. I hope that this will be seen as a reasonable amendment giving a little greater flexibility. I think it would be in the general interests of children and indeed of local authorities. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady David, on the need for flexibility in this area. It seems to me that there are a number of children who absent themselves from school or do not go to school at all. If one looks at those cases there are very often social problems—not problems of the school—which should be dealt with by social services departments. In many authorities the education department will refer such cases to the social services department as being a social problem.

359
There are the other cases where children go to school, register, do not like the lesson that is coming up (which I have to say is usually maths), go downstairs to the cloakroom, change into their tee-shirts and go out. That is a school problem. So there are very often problems of school and social problems out of school. One hopes very much that there can be flexibility in this area.
The Lord Chancellor: The first limb of the conditions in Clause 26(2) requires that the child has suffered significant harm or is likely so to suffer. The second limb requires that this harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the child being given or being likely to be given care which is below a reasonable standard. I shall not go into the full wording. Amendment No. 151 would add to this limb a third condition; namely, that the harm or likelihood of harm to a child of compulsory school age is attributable to his not being properly educated.
I urge your Lordships to resist the amendment for two reasons. First, it would mean that a child could be placed under a care or supervision order purely on educational grounds. As both noble Baronesses have said, that could be a purely school problem. Children may have been put out properly to school. They may have been encouraged to go, have all the necessary equipment but then perhaps find that they do not like the maths lesson. I am sorry to hear that it is usually maths.
It may perhaps have something to do with the teaching of mathematics. Whatever the reason, it has nothing to do with the parents: it has to do with the fact that once the child gets to school it does not want to stay there. The parents may have done everything possible to persuade the child to go to school and made every possible provision for the child. That is the first point. I think it would be wrong to put a child in care for what I have called purely educational grounds of that sort, when it is the school that is really the problem.
Clause 26(8) defines "harm" for the purposes of this clause as,
"ill-treatment or the impairment of health and development".
"Health" includes mental health and "development" includes intellectual, social or behavioural development. It would be possible under the clause as drafted for a court to be satisfied that the child was being harmed for reasons relating to his failure to receive proper education. The court would then proceed to the second condition, which at present requires consideration of the standard of care which he is receiving or is likely to receive from his parent. The court should consider whether this care is or is likely to be below that which it is reasonable to expect the parent of a similar child to give to him, or whether the child is beyond parental control.
That may be one of the problems. In other words, the court will be required to assess whether a child's parents have taken reasonable steps to care for him. Even if the child is intellectually underdeveloped, if that is not a result of the parents' action there would not be a care order; but if it is a result of the parents'
360
action or inaction that would give grounds for a care or supervision order. Only if they have not taken reasonable steps and the court satisfies itself that the order is necessary may it proceed to make a care or supervision order. So on educational grounds, where the ultimate responsibility for the failure, if I may use that word and avoid unnecessary repetition, is that of the parent the case can be dealt with properly under this aspect.
The amendment under consideration would not require such an investigation. Rather it would be enough to show that the child is not being properly educated, which in itself is a subjective and imprecise term. This was looked into quite closely in the review of child care law and in the White Paper. I have tried to explain it in my own words and I do not think I need go into that any further. That is the aspect of the care matter.
The purpose of an education supervision order is to give a court powers to place a child under the supervision of a designated local education authority if it is satisfied that the child is not being properly educated. In particular, this would be likely to apply where the parents have not complied with a school attendance order under Section 37 of the 1944 Act requiring parents to register their child at school, or if the parents have failed to secure the child's regular attendance at school. An education supervision order would be appropriate where the evidence indicates that the child's failure to attend school is specifically an educational problem and not due to a lack of parental care, in the sense relevant under the provisions of Clause 26.
There are some cases where failure to attend school is not symptomatic of wider social problems but is specifically an education problem and a matter of ensuring compliance with the Education Act. So we tried to provide, where it is a social problem, for the case to be covered under the Clause 26 type of order, and, where it is not a social problem but an educational one, under the education supervision order. I hope the noble Baroness will feel that there is a distinction between these two powers which is appropriate and that we have covered the whole ground appropriately by both provisions.
Baroness Faithfull: I wonder whether I may just say that from the point of view of this Bill I am satisfied with the explanation given to us by the noble and learned Lord. However, I should like to make a plea about something on which the noble Baroness, Lady David, and I feel strongly; namely, that the whole situation with regard to education welfare officers and the social services should be looked at, though perhaps not in these amendments and not in this Bill.
Baroness David: I would accept that this amendment was perhaps not put in precisely the right place. I do not think I would accept that the problems are very often just school problems: there is usually something else as well which leads to truancy and skipping off. I should like to look at Clause 31 again, and for the next stage, after consultation with the noble Baroness, we may think of a way of doing what

361
we wish to do in Clause 31. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 22, line 17, leave out from ("1968") to end of line 19.
The noble Lord said: This amendment suggests that we should leave out subsection 6(c) on page 22. This subsection inhibits the indpendent action by the NSPCC, to the detriment of children. In many cases, once a place of safety order—which in this Bill is to be called an emergency protection order—is taken the child moves to local authority accommodation. Under subsection 6(c), instituting care proceedings would be limited to children living at home, placed with relatives, in hospital or in accommodation provided by other voluntary organisations. Since the authorised person in these circumstances can take care proceedings, this subsection does not follow any general principle.
The society takes about 200 place of safety orders a year, of which approximately 120 result in care proceedings. Consultation takes place with the local authority before proceedings are taken. The basis for the society, rather than the local authority, instituting proceedings is that the best interests of the child are met by such action because, first, it is more efficient since the society has the evidence, having taken the place of safety order. Secondly, it is an essential part of the developing social work relationship between the society, the child and the family. Thirdly, it is an essential part of the continuing relationship with the child and family. Many place of safety orders are taken in respect of children already known to the society and with whom they are working.
In addition, subsection 6(c) would close down a real alternative to social services provision in circumstances where for one reason or another they are unable to provide a service during industrial action, for example, or where they are unable to allocate places, and provides an element of choice to the child and family about the services available to them. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The point raised here relates to care proceedings under which the NSPCC is authorised. The general principle we are following in this provision is that there will be several situations in which local authorities will provide accommodation for children. Such arrangements may be made with the voluntary co-operation of parents under Part III, for orphans, certain other children who under present legislation will be received into care, and for children who are the subject of emergency protection orders or of police protection under Part V, including emergency protection orders obtained by persons other than the local authority.
There is nothing in this Bill which in any way inhibits such a person from putting the child in question into accommodation provided by the local authority. The removal of the restriction in subsection 6(c) would allow authorised persons to
362
initiate care or supervision proceedings for any child provided with accommodation. That would surely cut very definitely across the local authority's responsibilities and would not be an incentive to the co-operative working between authorities and agencies within the framework of clear responsibilities for the local authorities that we wish to see.
There would of course be nothing in the present statutory scheme to prevent the NSPCC expressing its concern or making available information or evidence which it may have in connection with children provided with accommodation by local authorities. Indeed, it would be quite the reverse. We want generally to encourage the closest possible collaboration, but the object of such an order will be to have the local authority deal with the child and it is really just a question of when.
Our view at present is that Section 6(c) is appropriate because once the child is in local authority accommodation it appears right that the local authority should be the person who actually initiates the application for a care order and there is nothing to prevent the local authority using all the information evidence and so on, with proper cooperation, that the NSPCC has. I understand that relations there are very good and I hope that they will remain so.
I hope that in the light of the explanation which I have just given my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I am not quite sure that the main point which I was seeking to make has been answered by my noble and learned friend. Indeed, he said a great deal and I shall have to read what he said. I think that we may have to return to the matter on another occasion and perhaps we should not be so blunt in seeking to get rid of the whole of Section 6(c). Obviously there is some merit in having it in the Bill. However, I think that I may well come back at a later stage of the proceedings with another modification to cover the particular point which I am seeking to make. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 22, line 28, leave out first ("a") and insert ("any officer of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and any").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 155 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 201. There are problems in connection with these two amendments about which my noble and learned friend is aware. Indeed, he told me about them. I shall return to those problems at the end of what I have to say, because I wish first to outline, on behalf of the NSPCC, the purpose of these amendments.
The society is seeking to be named in statute. It was founded in 1884 and by its Royal Charter of 1895 it is empowered to bring proceedings to protect children. It is presently uniquely designated by the Secretary of State in regulation as an "authorised

363
person" to bring care proceedings under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.
The society has helped over 9 million children, and last year responded to over 23,000 reports of alleged cruelty involving some 50,000 children. In the last four years the society has reorganised its services. Due for completion at the end of 1988, its proposed network of 60 child protection teams throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland is now in place and seven more teams are planned.
Every child protection team provides a 24-hour service to ensure that any call at any time of day or night, in any place, will be answered. In response to a call the NSPCC will give advice to the caller on what to do about a child abuse problem and it will arrange for appropriate action to be taken to protect that child.
In some parts of a child protection team area a contractual arrangement may exist with the local authority that the NSPCC will pass on the referral to another agency for investigation, usually the social services and occasionally the police. The society will always take action itself if the interests of the child require it or if the appropriate agency cannot respond in time. The society will also respond directly, when this is necessary, to preserve confidentiality and in response to a specific request by the referrer.
In addition, each child protection team offers a range of services to protect children and prevent abuse. Casework and assessment with children and parents are provided to assess and help abusing families both in their own homes and in NSPCC centres. Family care services provide preventive and therapeutic work with families: they are staffed by professional nursery and child care workers who liaise closely with their child protection team colleagues. Trained people within the NSPCC assist in offering local education and training for professional and voluntary organisations.
Procedural and policy liaison is developed. Uniquely, the society is represented on all area child protection committees. Consultative services are offered to co-professionals on a 24-hour basis. In addition to their child care services, some child protection teams—10 currently—manage the child abuse register on behalf of the local authority.
The society seeks to complement the work of local authorities, at the same time offering a choice of service to the thousands of parents and the general public who make referrals each year, and independence of view and action to professional colleagues who meet to refer children for help, and want for themselves consultation, advice and training.
The unique standing of the society—now the largest child protection agency in Europe, employing 450 child protection officers in its inspectorate and many more family care and counselling staff—is recognised in the Working Together circular and guide of 1988, in which it is named alongside the local authority social work investigation agency as the agency able to provide key workers in child abuse cases. As a reflection of its work in the protection of children the society is seeking to be named in statute.
At present the society is authorised, but under secondary legislation. It was first authorised in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Three orders were made under that Act. By those the NSPCC and the Liverpool, Birkenhead and Wallasey Societies were made authorised persons. The latter societies were later incorporated into the NSPCC. It may be relevant to say that the NSPCC is not the only body of its kind which seeks to be named in statute. Indeed, I am told that the RSPCA is so named. Therefore it is not without precedent.
Having said all that, it is a fact that Amendment No. 201, to which Members of the Committee may wish to refer, imposes a duty on the NSPCC. The fact that the society wants that duty is not relevant. But the fact that it imposes a duty upon the society means that, if it were passed, the Bill would become hybrid and one does not wish to incur that distinction, delay and all the trouble which would result.
I am told by the Clerks of the House that they believe the reference to the NSPCC in Amendment No. 155—or the particular point of Amendment No. 155—and the reference to it, for example, in an amendment which I shall be moving later on (Amendment No. 199AB) confers a benefit upon the society. Therefore it is not certain that the effect would be hybridity. Of course if there is any question of that happening, I should not seek to press any of these amendments and I shall certainly not be moving Amendment No. 201 because of the very firm advice I have received.
However, I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to make some comment on this issue and perhaps he will be able to give us a little latitude in regard to Amendment No. 155, if only before the Bill is enacted, because we may introduce the matter at a later stage if this is not an appropriate moment to do so. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The Government and, I am sure, the whole Committee greatly appreciate the work of the society. It has a most distinguished record and I speak for the Government as well as personally. I have known its excellent work. This is evidenced by the fact that uniquely now the society is authorised under this type of legislation. The difficulties are of a technical nature and in view of what the noble Lord has said I undertake to consider the matter carefully. I believe that it would be right to leave this over and I know that my noble friend is willing to take that course.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble and learned friend for that reply and for saying that he will look into the matter carefully perhaps with a view to meeting the wishes of the NSPCC. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 155A:
Page 22, line 32, after ("impairment-) insert ("or neglect").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment adds to the definition of "harm" which appears in Clause

365
26(8). It seeks to add "or neglect" after "impairment" so that the line would read:
" 'harm' means ill-treatment or the impairment or neglect of health or development".
It is a small aid to interpretation and the definition of "harm" corresponds in part to the primary condition in Section 1(2)(a) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. We find it hard to believe that it was intended to leave out "neglect". I beg to move.
Lord Banks: I wish to say a word on the amendment, as its purpose is virtually the same as that of the following Amendment No. 156, to which I referred earlier. We were concerned that "neglect" did not appear to be covered by any of these definitions. The only difference between our amendment and that of the noble Baroness is that she has added the word "neglect" to the definition of "harm", whereas we should have added it to the definition of "ill-treatment". I should be happy with either and I support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: As the noble Baroness has said, "neglect" appears in the present law in the phrase "avoidable neglect" in Section 1(2)(a) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. It permeates Section 3 of the Child Care Act 1980 as the basis on which a local authority may pass a resolution assuming parental rights and duties. The Review of Child Care Law studied these two sections in depth. It commented that by focusing on parental unfitness the present law "may have a stigmatising effect" and "provide unnecessary conflict" and, most importantly, "distract from the requirement to treat the child's welfare as the overriding factor". It recommended therefore that,
"it should be necessary to prove that there is, or is likely to be, harm to the child".
This recommendation underlies Clause 26(2). The amendment would focus on the word "harm", which is defined in Clause 26(8) to mean "illtreatment"—that is the noble Baroness's amendment—"or the impairment of health or development". The first amendment would redefine "harm" in Clause 26(8) as including neglect of health and development. The second would classify "neglect"—that is in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banks—as a form of ill-treatment. The effect of these amendments is to define harm in terms of "neglect". My answer is that it may or it may not be right to say that neglect harms a child. That depends on the situation. Some children might thrive perfectly well although they were neglected in the sense that nothing particular was done for them. It appears to me therefore to be right and crucial to the conditions in Clause 26(2) that this question be judged from the child's point of view.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord are anxious about "harm"—the child being damaged. It is the result of the process that is in question which is what is at issue. What we have done is to focus on the end result. If harm is produced, however it is produced, that will be sufficient. That deals with that stage. We then go on to trace that to the deficiency in parental care. Where evidence of neglect can be classed as ill-treatment or causes impairment of
366
health or development, it will satisfy the criterion of "harm". In other cases—and I accept that this may well be in a minority of cases—neglect may not amount to harm. If we say in Clause 26(8) that harm means neglect, then proof of neglect will mean that the first condition in Clause 26(2) may be satisfied, even when what has been neglected has not done any harm to the child's condition.
Those are the basic reasons why we have not felt able to accept the amendments. However, I stress the first point about stigmatisation as very important. We have tried to get past that because we want to try to take conflict out of the care situation so far as possible. If we can get the right result without unnecessary conflict, so much the better. I think that all Members of the Committee would feel that that was right. Therefore I believe that if one can look at the child and say, "Has this produced in the child something that requires to be dealt with?", that leads to the right answer. Although nobody likes to see children neglected, as I said, it may well be in the minority of cases that the neglected child will thrive. So it has the combined effect of concentrating on the right answer, the right test, as well as avoiding unnecessary stigmatisation of parents as neglecting parents when it is not necessary, for the purposes of really affording a proper remedy, so to do.
Baroness David: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that answer. As regards stigmatising, I should have thought that ill-treatment stigmatised just as much as neglect, if not more so. It is not just neglect on its own, it is the neglect of health or development, the "impairment or neglect of health or development". It is not just neglect which has no result. However, I realise that the matter has been thought about very carefully and I should like to read what the noble and learned Lord has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 156, 156ZA, 156A and 156B not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 156C:
Page 22, line 40, leave out ("the court shall compare his health or development") and insert ("his health or development shall be compared").
The noble and Learned Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to take Amendment No. 253B with this. In Part IV of the Bill, the question of whether harm is significant in a particular case, which has to be established for a care order or supervision order, is for the court to decide. Clause 26(9) at present provides that where the question of whether harm suffered by a child turns on the child's health or development, the court shall compare his health or development with that which could reasonably be expected of a similar child.
Questions of whether harm is significant will fall to others in addition to the court under certain provisions of Part V of the Bill. Those are the ones to which later amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, refer. Under Clause 39 it will be for the constable, who has to decide whether the child should

367
be taken into police protection; and under Clause 40 for the local authority, which has to decide whether to investigate the child's circumstances. Accordingly, it is wise to take out the court and leave this as a general way of assessing the question, whoever has to decide it. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have only a mild grammatical hesitation about the amendment. The Bill stands conspicuously drafted in idiomatic language which is understandable by the people to whom it is addressed. It seems to me a pity to turn a perfectly good phrase in the active form into a phrase in the passive form which means precisely the same thing.
The Lord Chancellor: It does not mean precisely the same thing because in the active form it is restricted to the court, whereas in the passive form it applies to anyone who may have to ask the question. I share the desire of the noble and learned Lord to keep the active form if possible; but I concluded that it was necessary to have this provision apply to other cases than where a court has to decide the matter. That is the point of it. The other way of doing it would be to put a similar subsection into every decision-making process where the matter may arise. It was thought best to err on the side of brevity in this case.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved amendment No. 157:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
("Assessment prior to application for a care order.
Before an application is made by a local authority or authorised person for a care order or a supervision order the authority or authorised person shall consult with representatives of all professions it considers likely to have an interest in the making of an application and shall assess in consultation with them the desirability of taking such a course of action having regard to the circumstances of the particular case and any advice or guidance relevant to it.").
The noble Baroness said: This is by way of being a probing amendment seeking information. In the Cleveland Report it was found that case conferences were not being held before children were removed from home on a place of safety order. Those of us who have worked or are working in social services departments know that it is good social work practice to hold a case conference before taking any action on any child, unless of course it is an emergency. In that way there is shared responsibility and there is shared knowledge about a child. It means that all those who are working with the child are contributing towards what they think to be best for the child. I have read other reports of where children have been brought before a court without a case conference being held beforehand.
It is true that a social worker is the key worker. Nevertheless, I believe that at such an important step in a child's life there should be joint responsibility on the part of health services, education services, social services and anyone else involved. I am not sure whether that provision should appear in primary legislation. Perhaps it should appear either in regulations or in the form of advice to local
368
authorities. In the ordinary way one feels that such advice should not have to be given because this provision is good practice. The fact remains that in some authorities this provision has not been carried out.
I do not propose to press this amendment. But I should like an assurance that somewhere, either in regulations or in circulars, local authorities will be advised that case conferences involving all those concerned with a child should be held before the child is brought before a court. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The basic duty which is required in order to, as it were, found this practice is contained in Clause 40 of the Bill which sets out a local authority's duty to investigate. Subsection (1) requires that local authorities,
"shall make, or cause to be made, such inquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child's welfare".
Further, subsections (8) and (9) require the co-operation of other authorities in these inquiries. These provisions deal with the majority of cases which are likely to lead to an application for a court order. Clause 32 imposes a similar duty on local authorities to investigate when a court in family proceedings so directs. How the case is in fact investigated will differ according to the circumstances.
So there are duties to make inquiries. The amendment of my noble friend, as she explained, sets down at least one aspect of good practice in such inquiries. Having placed statutory duties upon local authorities in the terms that are suggested, the right place for detail on good practice is in guidance. For example, the publication entitled A Guide for Social Workers undertaking a Comprehensive Assessment, which was issued in November 1988, addresses the need for consultation with representatives of all professions who have an involvement with the child or family.
What the noble Baroness suggests is well worth achieving and this is the correct way to achieve it. The particular requirements of good practice may well develop and guidance is the best place in which easily to take account of these developments.
Lord Seebohm: I wish to add that the issue of a court order is a very traumatic experience not only for a child but for the whole family. It is traumatic also for brothers, sisters and parents. To my mind it is so serious that we cannot stress too strongly somewhere in the Bill that full inquiries must be made before action is taken.
Baroness Faithfull: I have one further point to make. If this provision is put into either regulations or circulars, I hope that it will also be circulated to the other professions involved; that is, to the health and education services. The reason why in the first instance we thought it should go into primary legislation was that the other professions would note it if it were in primary legislation. However, having

369
listened to the explanations of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 157A:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
("Application to bring child before court.
—(1) No child shall be brought before a court by his parent or guardian on the ground that he is unable to control him; hut where the parent or guardian of a child has, by notice in writing, requested the local authority within whose area the child resides to brine him before a court under section 26 of this Act and the local authority refuse to do so or fail to do so within twenty-eight days from the date on which the notice is given the parent or guardian may apply to the court for an order directing them to do so.
(2) Where an application has been made under this section for an order against a local authority, the local authority shall make available to the court such information as to the home surroundings, school record, health and character of the child as appears to them likely to assist the court and shall for that purpose make such investigations as may be necessary.
(3) On the hearing of an application under this section the child shall not he present.").
The noble Lord said: I draw the attention of the Committee for a moment to another subject, which is the case of a parent or a guardian who has a child whom he just cannot control. He wants something done for the sake of the child and the whole family. The first thing that I think the Committee would agree upon is that there should not be a procedure where parents can bring children before a court immediately on a matter of that kind. But where a parent has given notice to a local authority that he wants it to act at the request of the parent or guardian and the local authority does nothing about it or refuses to apply for an order, the Committee may feel there should be a procedure by which a parent can go to a court—not in the presence of the child—call upon a local authority to produce to the court all the information that it has, whether it be by way of history or specialist reports, and then see whether for the sake of the child and the family the court can make such an order.
I may be hopelessly wrong about this, but if I am wrong I am in good company—that of the Law Society, of which I am so proud to be a member. It is thought that these provisions, which came in Section 3 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, have, possibly by mistake, been omitted from this Bill, because Section 3 of the 1963 Act is in the repeal schedule to the Bill. Its provisions do not seem to have been reintroduced into the Bill. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor feels that an error has been made in this respect, my amendment would put it right. If, on the other hand, I am in error in the information I have been given, I apologise to the Committee, but I know I shall be forgiven.
The Lord Chancellor: This is not an omission without consideration. In other words, it is not an omission by mistake. It is a deliberate omission, and I shall try to explain why.
The amendment reintroduces into the legislation Section 3 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 which we propose should be repealed. Remnants of the old approach, such as denying the right of the child to be present together with reference
370
to bringing the child before the court, are retained in the amendment. That is redolent of an earlier approach to the problem.
The repeal of Section 3 is a necessary part of the scheme of the Bill under which it would he inappropriate for the local authority to be compelled to seek a care or supervision order. In all other aspects of the Bill the local authority has discretion to determine when it would be appropriate to initiate proceedings in respect of a child. A child will be capable of becoming subject to a full care order only on the application of the local authority, or an authorised person who has liaised with the local authority. The authority also has powers where appropriate to do what is necessary to promote and safeguard the welfare of children, for example, through the provision of services, without obtaining a care or supervision order. I think that it is right that where the local authority would, under a care order, acquire parental responsibility it should be able to decide whether that would be appropriate.
Where parents, despite their best efforts, find that they are unable to control a child of theirs and fear he is at risk they may seek the assistance or advice of the local authority. For the local authority the seeking of a care order in respect of that child should be a matter of last resort. Indeed, that is the policy of the Bill. Under the Bill the authority will be required to seek to reduce the need to bring proceedings for care or supervision orders. Thus it would be more appropriate for the local authority to consider whether any need arising from the kind of situation to which the noble Lord referred could properly be met by the provision of services which may include accommodation on a voluntary basis. It may be, for example, that the authority would consider it sufficient if the child was taken away from home and placed elsewhere. It would run contrary to those provisions to permit a parent to seek to compel the local authority to apply for a care order.
If the parent is not satisfied with the local authority's actions in the matter the representations procedure provided under Clause 22 would be an appropriate next step. Ultimately, if the parent considered that the local authority had behaved unreasonably then judicial review would be the remedy.
I believe that the local authority's power to provide services under Part III and its duty to seek to prevent the need to initiate proceedings are among the most important features of the Bill. I should not like to see those features diluted by a provision of the kind proposed since the scope of the Bill seeks to deal with such a situation in the way that I have described. I therefore invite the noble Lord, notwithstanding the disguished company in which he found himself, to consider whether he could withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: By the grace of God I am in such distinguished company at present that perhaps, with the assent of that company, I can invite the noble and learned Lord to consider one submission. It is a submission and not a call for a Division on the amendment. I am glad to learn that the repeal of the section was deliberate and not by omission. It appears that the repeal leaves a gap in respect of the

371
situation in which a local authority may be lax or may have exercised bad judgment in what may be an emergency for the family we are considering, the parent with a child who cannot be controlled.
I can well understand the noble and learned Lord saying that the provision that the child should not be present is somewhat antiquated. There may well be a situation before a court when it is not in the child's interest to be present. However, that is largely an irrelevancy in regard to the principle under consideration. Surely, there ought to be some way other than a judicial review which we all know is a matter of great expense, be it to the Legal Aid Fund or anyone else. The judges of the High Court are busily engaged upon matters of great moment with the result that it is very difficult to get an application for leave for judicial review unless there is a grave emergency. The lists are pretty full with such applications. To force that as the only remedy where a local authority does not listen to a parent when it should seems to me to create an unworthy machinery.
There was some wisdom, if not a great deal of wisdom, and some good thinking (and not just antiquated thinking) in the old Section 3. I have no evidence before me—although the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may have such evidence—of its abuse or that it was not working in the interests of families or children. I ask, as my submission, that the noble and learned Lord should consider whether there should not be some machinery in the Bill, other than through the complaints procedure or the rather cumbersome procedure of applying for a judicial review, whereby, after notice to a local authority, the matter could come before the court to consider whether a care order should be made in certain circumstances. I shall not press the amendment but I merely ask the noble and learned Lord, with his usual courtesy, to consider the situation, which has worried those who are concerned with the legal aspects of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: I have heard all that the noble Lord has said on the matter. I consider that the fundamental points I made deal with the matter. However, that does not mean that I shall not consider further what he said.
Lord Mishcon: In those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): We come now to Clause 27, Amendment No. 158.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Have we finally dealt with Clause 26?
The Lord Chancellor: Yes. The previous amendments concerned a new clause to be inserted after Clause 26. We have dealt with Clause 26 standing part of the Bill.
372
Clause 27 [Period within which application for care or supervision order must he disposed of]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 23, line 14, leave out ("make") and insert ("may").
The noble and learned Lord said: At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was good enough to point out a printing error in Clause 27(3). Amendment No. 158 is intended to correct that error. Once again I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord for pointing that out. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Effect of care order]:
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 158A:
Page 23, line 24, at end insert —
("( ) The exercise by the local authority of their powers in relation to the accommodation and welfare of a child in the care of the local authority shall be subject to any directions given by the court.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 158A would enable the courts to give directions to the local authority that is taking a child into care, has recently taken a child into care or has at any time taken a child into care. The amendment reinstates the effect of' Section 43(5) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which is repealed by the Bill.
Section 43(5) of the 1973 Act enables the court in family proceedings to give directions as to how the local authority might exercise its powers in relation to accommodation of a child or in relation to other matters concerning the child's welfare. We believe that that has been found to be a useful provision. It enables the court to direct whether or not a child should go to a long-term foster parent, to direct that a child should be placed with or near siblings or near a particular school, or to direct that a specified social worker should be allocated to the case. The power of the court to make such directions has already been curtailed considerably by a decision of the House of Lords in a case in 1982, a case which was criticised at the time.
The Bill allows the court to intervene to regulate parental contact but does not give the court power to direct a specific placement or a rehabilitation programme. There is a risk that Clause 29 applications will be used as a back-door means of bringing these matters before the court. The protective role of the court should be reinstated, for example to allow surveillance of the decisions of inexperienced social workers. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: A direction-making power exists under the current law in respect of children who have been committed to care in divorce and some other family proceedings, though our understanding is that it is rarely exercised other than in wardship. For most children in care the amendment would constitute a major change, with courts being able to take responsibility for deciding any matter concerning the welfare of the child.
Perhaps I may once again refer the Committee to the Review of Child Care Law in which this matter

373
was considered. The review took from the Social Services Select Committee's report on children in care the principle:
"the courts should make long-term decisions impinging directly on the rights and duties of children or their parents, and that the local authority or other welfare agency should make decisions on matters which, although they may be of equal or greater importance, are not susceptible to clear and unambiguous resolution".
The review went on to describe the disadvantages of giving courts greater reviewing powers. In paragraph 2.24 it commented:
"it is not only important that the reviewing body should itself have the power to deliver the care which it considers best for the child: it is also necessary that the body with day to day responsibility for the child should have a positive duty to 'take a grip on' the case and make firm and early decisions without the temptation to pass responsibility to another body".
It is of course not within a court's power,
"to initiate action to provide for a child, nor to deliver services which may best serve the child's needs".
Moreover, it says:
"even a well managed court with resources to hear cases speedily will take time to resolve disputes, because of the need for the parties to prepare their case and for the court to conduct any independent investigations. Such delays can he highly detrimental to all concerned, especially to the younger child, to whom time can be of crucial importance".
This Bill generally retains the current balance of power between courts and local authorities. It gives children, parents and others greater rights and remedies with regard to contact and the discharge of a child from care, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has already pointed out. However, it has taken from the Review of Child Care Law the principle of clarifying and emphasising the responsibility of local authorities.
Seeking to strengthen rather than undermine that responsibility, the Bill imposes a new duty on local authorities to establish a procedure for considering representations—and we know that that includes complaints—made to them about the discharge of their functions. I refer to Clause 23. The Review of Child Care Law commented:
"placing responsibility to decide a dispute on those with the responsibility for implementation"
is a better way forward than court review. It pointed out:
"a dispute process which is inaccessible and intimidating to the people concerned will be of little value to them".
If we are to have good decisions taken by local authorities in relation to care, I believe it is vital that they should he seen to have the responsibility, and passing the buck to the court or having the court intervene to some extent, and so on, is inimical to that direct line of authority and responsibility. I believe that there is nothing like responsibility to lead to good decision-making. Therefore in the light of what I have said I hope the Committee will agree that on this very important matter the Bill strikes the right balance, and, if the Committee is so persuaded, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Banks: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation of the present position. I was glad to hear him say that this Bill maintains the balance of power between the courts and the local
374
authority. Obviously I should like to consider what he has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 158B:
Page 23, line 37, after ("made") insert ("unless the child requests otherwise").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is intended to enable children of sufficient understanding to determine their own religion when in care. According to information that I have received, this issue was first considered in Parliament almost 100 years ago, in the Custody of Children Act 1891. That Act dealt with the situation in which parents were not considered suitable to have custody of their children. Although that Act has been superseded by considerable subsequent legislation, I understand that it is still in force.
Section 4 of that Act provides that where the court does not consider that the parent should have the custody of the child and the child is being brought up in a different religion from that of its parents' choice, it has the power to order that the child is brought up in the religion of the parents' choice. But the section then goes on to state:
"Nothing in this Act contained shall interfere with or affect the power of the Court to consult the wishes of the child in considering what order ought to he made, or diminish the right which any child now possesses to the exercise of its own free choice".
This amendment would bring into this major Bill the underlying principle of Section 4 of the 1891 Act. It is very much in line with the Gillick decision. I believe that it also affects the position as expressed in the major text on children's law—namely, Clarke Hall and Morrison—which states that the parents' right to determine a child's religious observance ceases when it is of an age to adopt its own view. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: When considering this amendment I think it is important to look at what Clause 28(3)(a) provides. It provides that the local authority which, while a care order is in force, has parental responsibility for the child, may not,
"cause the child to be brought up in any religious creed other than that in which he would have been brought up if the order had not been made".
In other words, the local authority must not cause a change in the religious creed under which the child is being brought up. That reflects the present law as set out in Section 10(3) of the Child Care Act 1980 for local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to the court situation. So far as concerns court orders, the general provisions of Clause 1 of this Bill require the court to consider the wishes of the child. We have already considered that point. It reflects very much the point to which the noble Lord referred. The present clause does not prevent a child who is in care under a care order being brought up in a religious creed different from that to which he subscribed before the care order was made. Its purpose is to prevent the local authority which has parental responsibility for the child by virtue of the care order

375
causing the child to be brought up in a different religious creed by action of their own. That is the idea.
For example, it should not place a child who had previously been, and wanted to continue to be, brought up in one creed with a local authority foster parent who had no sympathy with that creed and would be unable or unwilling to help the child fulfil his wishes; nor should it force a religious upbringing on an unwilling child. In other words, it should not bring about a change which would not have occurred had the order not been made. The idea is that so far as possible removing the defects in the child's care is what the local authority has to do—not replace it by notions of its own about the child's religious upbringing.
Clause 18, which sets out the local authority's welfare responsibilities with respect to children it is looking after is intended to ensure that matters of this kind are decided properly. Under Clause 18(4) the local authority, so far as is reasonably practicable, must ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child, his parents and any other person who has parental responsibility for the child before making any decision with respect to that child.
Clause 18(5) requires the authority, before making any such decision, to give due consideration to such wishes and feelings as it has been able to ascertain having regard, in the case of the child, to his age and understanding. It also specifically requires the authority to have regard to his religious persuasion. If a child in care who is of sufficient age and understanding decides that he wants to be brought up in a different religious creed or to drop out of religion altogether, and the authority considers, having regard to the wishes and feelings of others who have parental responsibility for him, that to allow this would not he contrary to the duty to promote and safeguard his welfare, it would not be prevented by Clause 28(3) from allowing it.
I believe that we have achieved the result that the noble Lord seeks by this amendment. It may be that the original idea of the amendment was prompted by a feeling that the clause was more all-embracing than is justified on a close reading of it. It is a delicate area. However, we have endeavoured to maintain the existing law. I believe that the safeguards in Clause 18 are extremely important and produce the result that the noble Lord has in mind.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I cannot help looking back over my past and wondering whether there is not an age difficulty here. It seems clear that if a boy aged 10 says, "I wish to become a Mohammedan" and his parents are Church of England, it would be unnecessary to give him that right. I remember very well that I read Bertrand Russell's What I Believe at the age of 15 and became a convinced athiest. It was not for very long—a year or two. I am interested to know how that would have applied in this case. There seems to be an age difficulty At a certain age a child should begin to think for himself and should be encouraged to do so. At an earlier age he should not. I do not know how the wretched local authority is supposed to interpret this.
The Lord Chancellor: Clause 18(4) and so on seek to address that point. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge has said, it is difficult. That is why I believe that Clause 18(4) is the best place for this to be considered. As I read the subsection it provides that the local authority must,
"so far as is reasonably practicable, ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child; his parents; and any person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him",
before making any decision. It must therefore find out what everybody wants. That is the first matter.
Clause 18(5) requires the authority before making any such decision, to give due consideration to such wishes and feelings as it has been able to ascertain,
"having regard"
in the case of the child
"to his age and understanding".
Some children of 10 are very forward. I am sure that by the age of 15 the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, was particularly well advanced. Therefore if the local authority had the responsibility at that stage it would no doubt think it right to give effect to those wishes. As the experience of the noble Lord grew—he cut off the story—but obviously some further change took place.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Several times.
The Lord Chancellor: The local authority's flexibility in Clause 18(5) to give effect to that is well preserved. I believe that the subsection addresses the problem in a more satisfactory way than attempting to do so in relation to a prohibition directed at the local authority seeking to change the child's creed for reasons of its own.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am grateful. I believe that Clause 18(5) covers the case.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The religious upbringing of a child is a problem that frequently comes before family courts. It is one of the most difficult to determine. It is particularly difficult where the parents are at variance on the matter.
My view is that the Bill has the matter absolutely right. I would say only this with reference to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. The less responsibility that is placed on an immature child in these matters where the parents may be at variance, the better.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Changing one's religion is a fairly serious matter. I should not like to see any more power given to children in care or under the age of 16 to change their religion, or to decide on their religion, than is already in the Bill. A child, for every kind of reason, may suddenly take a fancy to some religion. It may be the religion of their best friend, the boyfriend, or the girlfriend. They may even have been "got at". I honestly believe that 16 is quite young enough to be able to take such an important decision and one which has such an effect on one's future.
Lord Prys-Davies: I believe that this amendment has been prompted by the fact that the religious creed of a child or a young person is given a special place in subsection (3)(a). On reading this clause one forms the view that it is all-embracing but the Lord Chancellor has referred us back to Clause 18(4). That will not be immediately apparent to people when they read subsection (3)(a). It will become apparent if one has mastery of the Bill. We shall have to read and study what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said and see whether we are content with the reply. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 23, line 46, at end insert—
("(4) While a care order is in force with respect to a child, no person may—

(a) cause the child to be known by a new surname; or

(b) remove him from the United Kingdom,

without either the written consent of every person who has parental responsibility for the child or the leave of the court.
(5) Subsection (4)(b) does not—

(a) prevent the removal of such a child, for a period of less than one month, by the authority in whose care he is; or

(b) apply to arrangements for such a child to live abroad (which are governed by paragraph 17 of Schedule 2).").

The noble and learned Lord said: I have already explained this amendment in relation to Amendment No. 45. It is moving these provisions from one part of the Bill to another. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Parental contact etc. with children in care]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 159A:
Page 24, leave out lines I to 3 and insert—
("(I) Where a child is being looked after by a local authority the authority shall (subject to the provisions of this section) allow the child reasonable contact with—").
The noble Lord said: Clause 28 empowers the court to make a contact order in respect of a child who has been placed in the care of a local authority. That is fine. However, what will happen when there is a dispute over contact when the child is in voluntary care? He has not been placed in care but is in voluntary care. I am told that such disputes can arise frequently and there is no forum in which they can be resolved except that the family members can use the complaints procedures set up by the local authority in accordance with the code of practice on access.
The alternative—although I do not think that I should use that word—is for a parent to remove the child from voluntary care if the dispute cannot be resolved. But that might be a drastic step to take even assuming that it is a practical alternative. To remove the child might be a totally inappropriate step to take in the child's own interest.
Henceforth, when this Bill is in force, parents or relatives of children placed in care can look to the
378
court to resolve a dispute over contact with children. If we have correctly understood the position, the parents or relatives of a child in voluntary care will not have access to the courts. That is our understanding. It is not apparent why there should be this distinction, if it exists. The amendment will ensure that disputes about the amount of contact with children in voluntary care can also be referred to the court for resolution. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The essential idea of children who are not in care being looked after is, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, says, a voluntary arrangement. That means that the child is the full responsibility of the parent who is still there in relation to the child. In that situation it appears to me that the correct procedure is that provided generally in the earlier part of the Bill where the Section 7 contact order is appropriate. That is a general possibility of applying for a contact order in relation to a child.
To bring the compulsory care provisions into the voluntary arrangements would be a contradiction and would be damaging. The structure provides that in Part II the provision of local authority services and support, including accommodation, is essentially voluntary where there is no transfer of parental responsibility to the authority. Part IV provides for compulsory intervention in the upbringing of children including, in care cases, a transfer of parental responsibility to the authority. I am strongly moved not to import non-compulsory provisions into Part IV and so damage the structure of Part IV in that way. I question the appropriateness of the Clause 29 provisions for children accommodated under Clause 17.
As I have said, the relationship between the authority and persons having parental responsibility for the child is different in those cases. The arrangements are voluntary, and the whole thrust of Part III is promoting partnership. The proposition in Clause 29 that it is for the authority to allow contact, that the parents may apply for a court order requiring the authority to allow them access, or the authority for an order authorising them to refuse access, is surely not in keeping with the approach of voluntary co-operation that we wish to foster. In a sense it is not for the local authority to allow it in that situation. The child is only there because of agreement. It is for the parties involved in the agreement to agree.
There is an implication of authority over the child in the idea of allowing access which is not appropriate in a case where the arrangements are voluntary. I have a good deal more that I could say, but I believe that is sufficient to make the point that arises on this case.
Lord Prys-Davies: I hope that I have correctly understood the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Do we therefore have the following assurance? Where the child is in voluntary care and there is a dispute about access which cannot be resolved, parents can, nevertheless, apply under Section 7 for a contact order.
The Lord Chancellor: Yes, that generally is the case so far as I can see. That would be the appropriate procedure provided under the Bill for dealing with a situation where the arrangements are voluntary. Apart from the fact that the local authority is providing a service, the parental responsibilities and relationships are the same as they are in a general family situation for which Section 7 is designed to cater.
Baroness David: May I ask a question? What I understand is that the arguments may be not about the parents having contact, but a dispute between the parents and other family members. I am not sure how that would be resolved under Section 7.
The Lord Chancellor: The same provisions would apply. I cannot see why there should be a different kind of procedure for resolving problems between parents and the other people where the parents had arranged with a local authority to keep the child for a while, and where they had not done so. I cannot see that that is a relevant distinction. Section 7 provides comprehensive arrangements for resolving disputes where it is right that people should have the possibility of contact with a child. The mere fact that a child is under some kind of voluntary arrangement in the keeping of the local authority should not be different from arrangements made for, let us say, keeping a child in a private school or some other form of residental accommodation.
Lord Prys-Davies: I believe that the explanation that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has given to the Committee is reassuring. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 159B:
Page 24. line 4, after ("parents") insert ("grandparents and siblings").
The noble Baroness said: This is a very simple amendment. It seeks to add a phrase at the beginning of Clause 29:
"Where a child has been placed in the care of a local authority by a care order, the authority shall (subject to the provisions of the section) allow the child reasonable contact with … (a) his parents".
I wish to add to that "grandparents and siblings". I believe that is self-explanatory. I beg to move.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I should very much like to support the amendment. I have had great experience concerning difficulties with families, and over and over again it is granny or grandpapa who saves the situation and very often looks after the children or a child as the case may be. It is most important that they should be mentioned in the Bill.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I too should like to support the amendment; but I feel that it should be widened. Not all children have grandparents. Not all children have siblings. For some the member of the family who is closest may be an uncle, an aunt or a first cousin. I should like to see the noble Baroness's amendment agreed to and he extended to include other relatives in default of grandparents and siblings.
Lord Banks: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed Amendment No. 162 with this amendment. Amendment No. 162 wants to insert at the end of line 9:
"and the authority shall further consider whether to allow the child reasonable contact with any relative within the meaning of section 77(1) of this Act".
In Clause 77 a relative is defined,
"in relation to a child, [as meaning] a grandparent, brother, sister. uncle or aunt (whether of the full blood or half blood or by affinity) or step-parent".
The object of the amendment is simply to ensure that the local authority will at least consider the whole wider family.
The Lord Chancellor: I venture to think that most of these views have already been accommodated. There is nothing in Clause 29 that precludes contact with any other person. The duty to promote contact is that in paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred earlier and on which he asked me a question. Paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 states:
"Where a child is being looked after by a local authority, the authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with his welfare, endeavour to promote contact between the child and … his parents … any person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him: and … any other person connected with him".
That is intended to be a wide phrase embracing any form of connection. That was the point that the noble and learned Lord asked me about. This is a phrase already within the existing law, as I understand it, and is intended to be a phrase of wide general import and would include not only the grandparents, for whom the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lady Elliot are concerned, but also the much wider family that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is concerned about. I believe that those worries are adequately met. subject to the explanation about connections that I have just given.
Baroness David: So long as people know what is in the schedule and what is connected with it, that is all right. I suppose that guidance and help will he available, because people reading only part of the Bill will not plough through the long schedules. I hope that general guidance will be issued, although I appreciate that what is in the schedule covers the point. I must leave the matter in the hope that there will be plenty of guidance and I propose to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Erroll: I should like to ask why there is a different restriction in the other clause. I do not understand how there can be one restriction in one place and a different restriction here. One should refer to the other, but Clause 29(1)(a) states "his parents" and that is a different restriction from the one which has been explained. Why have a different restriction?
6.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I opened my remarks by saying that there is no restriction in Clause 29. It is a provision which puts responsibility upon the local

381
authority to allow reasonable contact with the parents in all circumstances. Paragraph 13 supplements that because there are difficulties. Allowing is one issue, but we wish to promote contact. There is no conflict between the provisions at all. Paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 is a stronger duty. Clause 29 merely allows but paragraph 13 contains a stronger duty requiring the authority:
"so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with his welfare",
to promote all those other contacts. Clause 29 makes clear the fact that, unless there are some exceptional circumstances, the parents are people with whom contact should he allowed in general.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: The noble and learned Lord quoted from paragraph 13 to Schedule 2. which provides for "his parents". It is often the parents who are at fault so one wishes to have other people involved. The paragraph then provides for:
"any person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him".
Grandparents and other relations are not mentioned. The provision would not cover that because it states:
"any person who is not a parent".
We wish to include the grandparents and intimate relations.
The Lord Chancellor: That is covered because "any … person connected with" the child would include a grandparent. A grandparent is a pre-eminent example of someone who has a definite connection with the child. The clause is int ended to embrace a general obligation to promote contact between the child and those who have any kind of connection with him and to try to maintain an ordinary family provision. The intention is that the child is not taken away and put into a form of isolation but, so far as possible, is kept in contact with all those people with whom he has had connections.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Would it not be better if Clause 29 made reference to Schedule 2, paragraph 13?
The Lord Chancellor: One must assume that people will read the whole of the legislation, however difficult. We debated the subject yesterday. One cannot put everything in every place because one immediately introduces the most complex provisions.
The Bill has been set out in a reasonable structure. The words are reasonably clear and the English and syntax used are fairly idiomatic and not far from the words which we would ordinarily use. However, if one states that it is subject to another clause, and so on, in the manner of a conveyancer, one will soon produce a result which will be a good deal less intelligible than what we have now. However, I have no doubt that the noble Baroness is right and that guidance will have to be issued. I should not be surprised if some well-intentioned person thought of writing a book about it.
Baroness Faithfull: As one who has had to administer such provisions, I should like to say, "For goodness sake, don't let's have any cross-
382
referencing". I believe the noble and learned Lord knows that the book is being written.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 24, line 5, leave out from ("any") to ("and") in line 6 and insert ("guardian of his").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment. It would substitute the words "guardian of his" for the phrase "any person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him" in Clause 29(1). A guardian is the only person who is contemplated by this phrase in this context and therefore the amendment adds clarity.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 24, line 7, after ("order") insert ("or contact order").
The noble Lord said: Notwithstanding the clarifications in connection with the earlier amendment, I believe that there is room for my amendment to add the words "or contact order" to this part of the Bill.
If immediately prior to care proceedings a court decided that it was important for a child to be in contact with, for exemple, his or her brothers and sisters, grandparents or other relations, it would appear consistent that the contact order should remain in force as is to be the case with residence orders. The local authority can apply to the court to refuse to allow the child contact with a person if it is thought such contact is detrimental to the child. That is covered by subsection (4). It seems wrong that a person who has already had contact with the child might be placed in the situation of having to apply to a court for a second time. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am sure that we are all keen to see that, when a child is in the care of a local authority under a care order, contact is maintained between the child and any persons who have a substantial interest in the child where it would be in the child's interest for that contact to be maintained. That is provided for in paragraph 13.
Imposing a duty to allow contact between the child and any person who had previously had the benefit of a residence or contact order would be one way of approaching the matter, but I do not think that it is as simple as that. Under the Bill, at Clause 67(2), the making of a care order with respect to a child will discharge any existing Section 7 order, which of course includes both residence and contact orders. There will therefore be no continuing legal rights flowing from such orders in respect of the child for anybody who has previously benefited from them.
Once a care order has been made, the court should consider afresh whether any further orders should be made. It is surely right, and it is in accordance with the White Paper, that any parent of the child or other person who has had parental responsibility for him should start with a presumption of reasonable contact. Accordingly, where a person had enjoyed the benefit of a residence order, which also gives parental responsibility—and it is most likely that the

383
child had actually been living with that person—that person too should be entitled to reasonable contact with the child subject to a care order.
The fact that a contact order has been made suggests some form of conflict between the parents who had previous responsibility for the child and the person seeking the contact.
The previous existence of a contact order is however a matter of a different nature. It does not give parental responsibility. The frequency of the contact that will have been allowed or exercised under the contact order may vary widely from case to case. And, given that, in the making of a care order and in the circumstances which led to it, there will usually have been significant changes in the child's circumstances since the contact order was made, we cannot be assured that it will be in the interests of the child for such contact order to be presumed by virtue of Clause 29(1) to have continuing effect thereafter.
I believe that it is right that if continued contact is desired and the local authority regard it as not within paragraph 13, the matter should be considered afresh. In the ordinary case, if the person is connected with the child paragraph 13 will cover that matter.
Lord Mottistone: That explanation sounds convincing and I look forward to reading with care what my noble and learned friend has said. If necessary I shall come back at a later stage but I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 162 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 162A:
Page 25, line 6, at end insert—
("(bb) notification by a local authority to any person likely to he affected of any arrangements which they propose to make for affording that person contact with a child in respect of whom a care order is sought.").
The noble Lord said: I follow on immediately from the last words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor which I remember, though he may have uttered some words thereafter. However, the chief words were that of course on a care order one has to look at the fresh situation created by that care order, which may be very different from the situation which applied when a contact order was made in other proceedings. I believe it follows logically from that that when the care order is made and the important question of contact is considered, it is absolutely right that it should be considered with the greatest care and that there should be a procedure for evidence to be brought and for submissions to be made.
As at present drawn, Clause 29(12) of the Bill states:
"Before making a care order with respect to any child the court shall—

(a) consider the arrangements which the authority have made, or propose to make, for affording any person contact with a child to whom this section applies; and

(b) invite the parties to the proceedings to comment on those arrangements".

This amendment sees to it that where contact is a crucial issue and a matter upon which the parties may feel very substantially that it is for the welfare of the
384
child that this should be carefully considered, one should deal with the matter effectively at the time the care order is made. The relevant parties should be given notice of the local authority's intentions in sufficient time to be able to make an application under Clause 29 which can be dealt with before a care order is made.
For example, the court may wish to consider a phased rehabilitation plan in accordance with which contact increases over a period of time. Arrangements for contact between a child and others, as Members of the Committee will agree, is an essential part of a child's future well-being. The Bill should give no impression that such matters will be dealt with less than fully. Before concluding, I should say that I have also been speaking to Amendment No. 162B. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The situation on these matters is that, as the noble Lord knows, notification provisions form an important part of the rules of court currently applying to care proceedings in a magistrates' court. We intend to improve the present provisions in relation to procedure but I assure the noble Lord that we intend to meet his concerns in rules of court as best we can. It seems to me that notification matters are matters best dealt with in the rules of court.
The immediate result of Amendment No. 162B would be that the court would have to deal with any application for an order requiring the authority to allow contact made in the light of proposed arrangements notified by the authority before the care order itself was made. It is perhaps a little pedantic to pick on a relatively small point, but I do not believe that that would be the logical order in which to proceed. However, I fully understand the noble Lord's desire that such applications should be dealt with in the course of care proceedings wherever possible, which is the point of Clause 29(12). The rules of court to which I have referred will set out the procedures to be followed.
We are as anxious as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to see that fair arrangements operate in all cases. I hope the noble Lord will feel that suitable procedural arrangements are best dealt with by rules of court. I appreciate that we have not fully dealt with the rules of court system, but that is our intention. I hope the noble Lord will feel, given that assurance, that his concerns will be met.
Lord Mishcon: Any assurance given by the noble and learned Lord is taken very seriously on these Benches and it is taken almost for granted as something which has already been done. That certainly applies to any assurance he gives as to rules of court, on which his influence will be great. I am rather nervous when we have to go on, even in Committee—I know that this is the first stage after Second Reading and that there are other stages to follow— without regulations in draft and without rules of court and relying so much on the assurances of the noble and learned Lord.
I know that because of that position he will regard the assurances he has given in Committee with the seriousness which he always does, possibly plus a

385
little more in the circumstances. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. I62B not moved.]
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 31 [Education supervision orders]:
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 26, hoe I, leave out second ("the") and insert ("a judge of the county").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 165. When I moved Amendment No. 144 to Clause 26 late on the third Committee day, I explained that the object of that amendment was to provide that care orders should be dealt with exclusively in the High Court; that supervision orders should be dealt with either in the High Court or the county court; and that the magistrates' court should have no involvement in either of those proceedings. I sought the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment, and in a moment 1 shall refer to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said on that occasion.
This amendment restricts the power to make supervision orders to the county court, though had Amendment No. 144 been accepted the High Court, which would have had exclusive jurisdiction over care orders, could have made a supervision order if it thought that the appropriate remedy.
Once again, the purpose of these two amendments is to eliminate the magistrates' court from children's cases for the reasons which I gave in moving Amendment No. 144. Because supervision is less drastic than a care order, it is accepted that a lower level of court —the county court—is appropriate to deal with supervision orders. Therefore, the argument on this amendment is essentially the same as that on Amendment No. 144 and heralds the argument, as the noble and learned Lord recognised, which will take place on the amendments to Clause 69.
In reply to Amendment No. 144 (at col. 220 of Hansard of 17th January) the noble and learned Lord intimated that the majority of care cases are likely to continue to be dealt with by the magistrates' court and that,
"we recognise that a proportion of care cases justify a hearing in the county court or in the most difficult cases the High Court".
The noble and learned Lord also said:
"apart from cases where there are already other family proceedings pending, we intend to provide by order that, at first at least, applications for care or supervision orders should be made to magistrates".
He then recognised that there was a problem which I would describe shortly as hiving up or hiving down. It is the possibility of hiving up which the noble and learned Lord favoured. He said:
"we recognise that some cases will be so complex as to require a professional judicial officer to hear them. We therefore intend to provide for the transfer of cases from the magistrates' court to the registrar who will then allocate the case within the county court or the High Court. If a magistrates' court or justices' clerk does not transfer
386
a case to a superior court, it is intended to make provision for an aggrieved party to challenge the decision".
The noble and learned Lord recognised that the knowledge in relation to the operation of both those sets of proceedings was imperfect. He then added:
"the powers we intend to take under the Bill are such that should practice show that the majority of care or supervision cases need to be heard in the county courts and the High Court it will be possible either to allow or to direct that initial applications for care and supervision orders should be made to a superior court".
Amendment No. 144 was received by the noble and learned Lord as too inflexible, and no doubt he will say this amendment equally is too inflexible.
I have to say that I approach this amendment, and Amendment No. 144, from an entirely different principle. I start from the standpoint of a family in crisis. The purpose of Amendment No. 144 to Clause 26, and of this amendment to Clause 31, is to assign a level of judiciary inquiry appropriate to the gravity of the subject matter—which is state interference in family life of a grave character.
The care order vests parental rights and duties on a local authority and divests the natural parents of these rights and duties. It usually removes the child from the family home, often on a permanent basis, and may result in no further contact with the family—ever. There could, as the noble and learned Lord recognised, be no greater interference by the state in family life.
I submit that it is unacceptable in principle that decisions of this nature should be made by laymen who are not obliged to give reasons for their decisions. Further, I suggest that it is a jurisdiction that is unwelcome to them; though as in every other part of their jurisdiction they give themselves to it in a highly committed and dedicated way. It is the extreme nature of the remedy that requires a decision should be taken in the High Court. The principle is that judicial resources should be allocated commensurate with the gravity of state interference with family life.
In practice, the majority of those cases in the magistrates' courts start as care proceedings, though the magistrates may make a supervision order instead of a care order. Moreover, when one is concerned with supervision orders there is a serious interference with individual liberty inherent in such an order. The order involves a significant monitoring of the life of the whole family by a local authority through its social workers or the probation service. I contend that in principle such an order should be made only by a professional judicial officer; and in this case that means the county court.
The notion of hiving up from the magistrates' court will just not work. There is no provision for magistrates to read written statements of cases or affidavits in advance. It is wholly outside their experience and it would impose an intolerable burden on them. What will happen in the real world is that magistrates will do their best to deal immediately with a crisis presented to them. They will start to hear the case and once started they will strive to finish. Every practitioner knows of such cases going from 10 o'clock in the morning until 10 o'clock at night in order to finish the case because the magistrates are not available the next day. At the end of the day no

387
one feels that justice has been done. It is trial by exhaustion.
The tendency will be for magistrates to see how it goes for a day before aborting the process, if that course is unavoidable. If the case is hived up, the whole process will be started again with huge emotional cost to the parties and with a longer process in the higher courts because of the endless references to what happened below. I submit that the sensible course in relation to the supervision orders is to start in the county court with the registrar having the power to hive up if need be. That could he done cheaply, quickly and effectively.
The truth is that the magistrate's courts were never designed and are not appropriate to deal with this class of case. This amendment is designed to ask why in principle they are thought to be. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: If I have understood this amendment right, it deals with education supervision orders. I am not sure that I can go along with the noble Lord in his dramatic picture of what happens in magistrates' courts. No doubt on occasion, as in some other courts, there is some extra stress and a desire to get things finished on the same day as that in which they started. Some courts are less under pressure than others.
The principle of this Bill is to seek to allocate cases according to what is required. After all, one of the great and central features of the judicial system of England and Wales is that all disputed factual matters in criminal cases affecting the liberty of the subject are taken by lay people no doubt under proper directions. There can be no greater interference with liberty than being sentenced to a lengthy period of imprisonment.
I do not believe that it is in accord with the principles of our system that lay people should be excluded from consideraton of difficult matters. That is one reason why we are attempting to make the care order grounds very clear and explicit, as my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve requested earlier, and that they should be operated by magistrates.
At present all these care applications are dealt with by magistrates and there is no appeal. I have indicated that we are proposing to change that arrangement. but I have no basis for saying that all care applications are of such complexity that no body of domestically interested magistrates could not properly resolve them. The amendment appears to go too far. Getting good regulations for the allocation of cases will not be easy; but I believe that it is possible. This amendment would cut across and wreck that proposal altogether. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: There is one point that the noble and learned Lord did not deal with. He is absolutely right to say that the deprivation of liberty is often a matter on which lay justices give judgment. He is absolutely right that in some cases there is no question of appeal, even when the liberty of the subject is involved.
What the noble and learned Lord did not deal with is a plea that has been made in this Chamber so often
388
and which I repeat now. However worthy and able magistrates may be, is it right and proper that matrimonial and children matters should be dealt with in a court, usually a court where criminal matters are dealt with in the normal way, and where the lay citizen feels that he is going along, as he says, to the magistrates' court? In many cases the description used is "I have been called to the police court".
This is a plea that one makes so often in this Chamber. I make it at this Committee stage again and I shall sit down having made it. Everything that my noble friend said, and everything that the noble and learned Lord said, points to the fact that there should be a family court, and that we should not be talking about a division between the county court, the High Court and the magistrate's court. Once more I make that plea at the Committee stage of this Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I may respond to that point. I sought to explain on Second Reading—and if necessary I shall explain again—that it is part of our purpose that these matters should be dealt with by the domestic jurisdiction of the magistrates. We may gradually be able to improve the situation, but 1 believe that that itself' makes an important distinction between criminal cases and this sort of case.
The noble Lord sadly shakes his head; but I believe that it is possible to make progress in that way. I believe that any form of family court will require to have different levels of judge presiding in it. I do not think that it is appropriate to have a single level of judge in any form of court that deals with all types of family matters. We are seeking to create a situation where those who deal with these matters at the magistrates' level—at the level of the domestic panel if that is preferred—should have a special interest in matters of children and child care; that those judges at the county courts who will ultimately deal with these matters should be those who have taken an interest; and in the High Court, the Family Division. We are certainly attempting to deal in a reasonably systematic but progressive way with the problem mentioned by the noble Lord, which is not quite the same problem as that highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in his amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: For the avoidance of jurisdictional conflict, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can report to us at this stage on how he is getting on with consideration of the family court.
The Lord Chancellor: Assuming that I get this Bill through, I shall be getting on with it rather well.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope that what my noble and learned friend said a moment ago does not mean that he has closed his mind to my suggestion that the initial stage of a family court should not be before the magistrates but should be an extended family council on the lines of the paper put forward by the Home Office, to which I drew his attention.
The Lord Chancellor: I certainly have that suggestion in mind, but in this Bill we are seeking to improve the arrangements for the child care jurisdiction. I believe that if these arrangements prove to be successful they may well give a way forward for all forms of family dispute resolution.
Lord Mishcon: Does the noble and learned Lord care to indicate that he regards the Bill as being an evolutionary stage towards a family court?
The Lord Chancellor: The phrase "a family court" is undefined. I have met a number of people who support that campaign. They have different views about the nature of the institution for which they are asking. This Bill is a considerable step forward in the arrangements for dealing with child care business. If, as I hope, the arrangements under the Bill prove successful, they will form a good model for dealing further with other aspects of family business. That is the sense in which I am moving. I believe that it has good prospects for creating general improvement over the whole field.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am pleased that the discussion on the amendment led into a discussion on a much more important subject. As to the answer, I am not clear. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David: I wonder whether I may now have the opportunity not to move the next group of amendments, to which I have already spoken. We could then finish Clause 31.
[Amendments Nos. 164 to 169 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have a question in relation to subsection (6). Why might not an education supervision order be made with respect to a child in the care of a local authority? I take back what I said in order to give the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, a chance to anticipate what I might have said.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee: The Committee may feel that we have reached a good time to break. We shall not return to the subject before 8.5 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

National Maritime Museum Bill [H.L.]
7.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
390
The main purpose of this short Bill is simple. It is to equip the board of trustees of the National Maritime Museum with the same kind of powers to hold land and property that are already enjoyed by the other national museums and galleries. The Bill achieves this by repealing a provision in the National Maritime Museum Act 1934 which vests the main property occupied by the museum at Greenwich in the Secretary of State for the Environment, and vests that property instead in the museum's own board of trustees. The Bill will therefore allow the National Maritime Museum to join the other English national museums and galleries in owning and managing the buildings they occupy. It may he helpful if I put these provisions in context and explain why we want to bring them forward now.
Until recently, building and maintenance work at the national museums and galleries was carried out on their behalf by the Property Services Agency. Although the programmes of work were of course discussed with the institutions concerned, they did not have direct managerial control over what was being done to the buildings in their name. The institutions found this unsatisfactory and pressed for change. The Government agreed that it was anomalous for these independent trustee bodies to have building and maintenance excluded from their responsibilities and in the hands of a separate central government agency.
As your Lordships may know, most of the national museums and galleries were therefore untied from the PSA from 1st April last year. Funds are now channelled direct to them, bypassing the PSA altogether. To complete the process, arrangements are in hand to transfer ownership of the National Museum and Gallery Estate from the Secretary of State for the Environment to the respective governing bodies. The new system is working well and has been greatly welcomed by the museums and galleries concerned. At that time it was not possible, however, to make the same change for the National Maritime Museum. This was because the necessary statutory powers are not available to the museum under its present governing legislation, the National Maritime Museum Act 1934.
Each national museum and gallery is subject to a governing document of some kind. In most cases this is an Act of Parliament. Although these Acts share a common framework, they are not identical in every respect. This is partly a reflection of the different nature of each institution, but as often as not is a reflection of the particular circumstances obtaining when the museum was set up. The National Maritime Museum was created in 1934 following an extraordinary and far-sighted act of generosity by Sir James Caird, who not only contributed substantially to the collection but paid for the conversion of the buildings at Greenwich to museum use. At that time it was natural and appropriate for the land and property concerned to be vested in what was then the Commissioners of Works. So far as concerns the National Maritime Museum, the new board of trustees therefore had no need of separate land holding powers and these were not included in the 1934 Act. The governing legislation for the other national museums andgalleries either included such

391
powers from the outset or had them added in subsequent legislation.
That, my Lords, sets the background to the Bill. I would add that the Board of Trustees of the National Maritime Museum and the director, Mr. Richard Ormond, are fully in support of the Bill and have been involved in the discussions on its preparation. I see that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, chairman of the trustees, is in his place and may perhaps wish to expand on that later.
Let me just say a brief word about the clauses. There are only three. Clause 1 transfers the property at Greenwich from the Secretary of State for the Environment to the National Maritime Museum Board of Trustees. It does this by replacing most of Section 1 of the 1934 Act by an equivalent set of provisions setting out the functions of the board in respect of that property and the terms and conditions on which it is to hold it. The property in question is specified in detail in Schedule 1 to the 1934 Act.
One provision perhaps requires a little explanation and that is Clause 1(5) which specifies what should happen to the property if, for any reason, the board ever ceased to use it for the purposes of the museum. The National Maritime Museum occupies buildings which were previously occupied by the Greenwich Hospital School. When the museum was set up, it was decided that the properties would be transferred to the Commissioners of Works, subject to an undertaking that, if the museum ever vacated them, they should revert to the Admiralty, as was, to be held for the benefit of Greenwich Hospital. That undertaking was given statutory force in the 1934 Act and is repeated here in equivalent terms. Again I would just add that the authorities of the Greenwich Hospital, which is of course still an active charitable institution, have been consulted on the preparation of the Bill and welcome this provision.
Clause 2 equips the Board of Trustees with certain additional powers, essentially to allow the board to hold and manage land and property. The powers here are standard ones for the national museums and galleries and, for example, are very similar to those in the National Heritage Act 1983 for the Science Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum. In particular, the power to acquire and dispose of land is not an unqualified one but requires ministerial consent in each case. This clause also gives the museum power to allow premises owned, occupied or managed by them to be used by others for non-museum purposes, provided—and this is the crucial point—that that does not conflict unduly with the board's statutory functions. Clause 3 simply deals in the standard way with the Short Title, the repeals of the relevant sections of the 1934 Act and arrangements for commencement.
As I said at the outset, this is a very short and straightforward Bill. It brings the National Maritime Museum's legislation up to date and more in line with the legislation for the other national museums and galleries. It does not itself introduce any points of principle that are not familiar from other museums legislation. It is nonetheless of considerable practical
392
importance to the museum and I hope that your Lordships will give it your support.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Baroness Trumpington.)
7.14 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by passing to the House the very real regrets of my noble friend Lady Birk, who in the normal course of events would have been standing at this Box. She was looking forward to doing so but she is not well. She is unable to be here this evening, and I am sorry that that is the position. She sends her apologies and regrets.
The Minister, both at the beginning and at the end of what she had to say, said fairly that this was an uncontroversial Bill. We from these Benches warmly commend all that the Minister has said concerning both the contents of the Bill and its raison d'être. We are privileged to have with us this evening the chairman of the trustees, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin. I am certain that when he speaks he will he able to anticipate what the Minister and her aides in the Box may be trying to do by giving some of the answers to the questions that I shall be asking.
So far as we on this side of the House are concerned we appreciate that the correction of the anomaly that has existed for some time was triggered not least by the redistribution of the functions and powers—in fact the life—of the Property Services Association. In that sense this is a consequence of the partial privatisation of that service. I think we need to have that on record.
In looking at things that might be relevant to the debate I had cause to look at one or two previous events —for instance, debates on the arts in another place last year. My honourable friend Mr. Mark Fisher not only spoke in a debate on the arts in May of last year but has written and has raised one or two interesting points. I note from the document, The National Museums, which is a document of the Museums and Galleries Commission, that the commission gives a simple and easily understood explanation of the situation at the National Maritime Museum.
We see for instance that the grant in aid for the current year is running in excess of £8 million. That certainly is no small sum. I wonder whether we might hear from the noble and gallant Lord whether the trustees consider that this is sufficient. When one looks at the breakdown one sees that the running costs are £5.5 million, the buildings cost £2.5 million, but the purchase grant is only £205,000. The sum of £205,000 out of a total of £8.25 million to purchase what are considered by the trustees to be worthy additions and ornaments to their current stock seems somewhat small. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us something about that.
The whole issue of charges for admission needs to be raised in this short debate. As the Minister knows, some museums impose charges and some do not. I see that the attendances at the Maritime Museum suffered a substantial drop in the early period when charges were made. The drop was almost 40 per cent. Although they have been modestly increasing, would

393
the Minister care to say something about whether or not it is right, lithe books are not balanced, that costs should be brought down even at the expense of the number of people who visit the museum?
On this side of the House we are very concerned about this important part of our heritage. Certainly the curatorial staff who have looked after the museum must be pleased and impressed, but at the end of the day we are trying to encourage more and more people to enter our museums. I wonder whether the Minister, or the chairman of the trustees, has anything to say about how that might be achieved.
Can we also look at this in the context of the great renaissance that has taken place not least at Greenwich but in Docklands? It is certain that the interest in this part of the world must be a great source of initiative and pleasure for all those concerned. I am not talking about thwarted plans, but may we hear of any plans or ambitions of the trustees? The Minister fairly says that all that is happening is that the power to deal with the property and the land, which was previously wholly in the gift of the Minister, is now transferred so as to be wholly within the province, subject to safeguards, of the trustees. I wonder whether the trustees have some plans which they can now carry out which previously they may not have been able to carry out. Have they some plans for expanding, adding or extending the buildings? Have they some projects? I am not remotely raising the question of what is right and what is proper, but it may be that this is a good opportunity to tell the world that there are some things that can be done in the future which could not be done in the past.
I am mindful of what the Minister has said— that anything respecting the non-continuing use of buildings has a reversion clause. In other words, nothing can be done without the approval of other bodies not least the Minister. However, at the end of the day this Minister will acknowledge, as will the trustees, that the Minister for the Arts is the supreme person who not only controls the purse strings but also acts in many other ways. So I wonder whether the Minister or the chairman can tell us not necessarily something helpful, but something of interest, in respect of what they see as their raison d'être.
My final point is about the trustees themselves. The document I used for research states on page 17:
"The spectrum from which trustees are appointed should be kept broad. And it is important that they should be appointed as individuals. for the personal contribution they can make, and not as mandated representatives of particulr interests."
I say amen to that. But the list of trustees is headed by HRH the Duke of Edinburgh and then there is the Admiral of the Fleet, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, and at the bottom, I see, Sir Nigel Broackes. I am bound to say that of the names listed between those of the noble and gallant Lord and Sir Nigel Broackes—although the noble and gallant Lord must know them all—I do not know any.
I wonder whether the Minister or the chairman can tell us how strong a trawl is made to ensure that those who serve as trustees of the National Maritime Museum reflect as broad a spectrum as possible. I see from the document that they are all appointed by the
394
Prime Minister. Perhaps that has some relevance to the point I have just raised. I am very pleased indeed to say from these Benches that we shall give the Bill all possible speed and that we wish it well.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in welcoming the Bill. I should like to say that I regret the sad absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, whom we miss in this sort of debate.
The National Maritime Museum is housed in what is certainly the finest group of 17th century buildings in the British Isles and perhaps in Europe, including Inigo Jones's Queen's House and Christopher Wren's old Royal Observatory. Its treasures include everything to do with man's use of the sea and ships and the history of man's efforts to regulate time and to map the world through the stars. Its collection is unique and unrivalled.
Usually, when one speaks from this side of the House about museums it is to complain that the central funding is so low, that the collections are suffering and that the staff are so preoccupied trying to raise money that they have no time to do their proper job which is to look after and effectively display their treasures to the public. This is not at all the case with the National Maritime Museum. I was greatly pleased to discover on my brief visit there last week that it is earning lots of money. I leave the noble and gallant Lord who is to follow me to tell your Lordships how that is being done.
Now that the museum is able, blessed release, to withhold its earnings from the rapacious claws of the Treasury, it is in clover and those responsible are confident that they can earn all they need to make the most of their marvellous collections. But of course this cannot cover the enormous cost of upkeep and renewal for their wonderful 17th century buildings, already severely in arrears. This is, and must be, a national liability and the Government have agreed to be responsible for funding through the arts and libraries department as soon as the PSA finishes the handover.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, told me—and this is typical of his whole training, it seems to me—that they made jolly sure to agree with the PSA the outstanding backlog of liabilities before they agreed to anything. I think we will see that they were quite right to do so. This includes the necessary money to complete the fifth year of the five-year plan to restore the Queen's House and to begin to carry through a similar programme for wholesale restoration and maintenance of the old Royal Observatory. The future upkeep of all the historic buildings under its care will be the responsibility of the museum itself and the necessary money will be supplied through the Office of Arts and Libraries.
All this sounds very good. I have a nagging feeling that it may be too good to be true. I must confess that I do not trust the Treasury one inch in such cases. If the latest exhibition earns £1 million worldwide but happens to coincide with, say, a serious subsidence of the observatory which will cost £2 million to put right, I visualise the Treasury saying, "Well, we

395
cannot give you any more this year, but you have got money in hand so go ahead and do the work and we will see what we can do later". Later, things are even worse and the museum ends by providing the money itself.
I want to be jolly sure that this will not happen. I want the noble Baroness who is to reply to give us two cast-iron assurances: first, that the Government pledge unconditional responsibility for the cost of upkeep of the buildings; and, secondly, that the Government pledge that the spending of every penny that the museum succeeds in earning is at the disposal of the museum for the benefit of its collection, and cannot be appropriated for building upkeep however large the figures may be. I am sure that the noble and gallant Lord will demand the same assurances.
I have to conclude by saying that not all museums are anything like as happy, which is why I am so suspicious of the position with which we are presented. I spoke to the British Museum this morning. It is in a state of the greatest worry over upkeep. The director's hair is visibly greying. The museum has had to keep unfilled over 150 staff places because it cannot afford to pay for the chaps. The V & A with which I have also had contact is very worried about the whole question of upkeep. This is not the moment to go through all the museums, but the story is very much the same.
The dangerous gap—and I want to warn the noble and gallant Lord to look after this—is between what the occupiers think is the right figure for upkeep as opposed to what the Treasury thinks is the right figure for upkeep. You simply cannot be too careful about that. Having said that, if we can secure the assurances I have sought I think the Bill is a very good one indeed. I have the very greatest pleasure in supporting it.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Lewin: My Lords, I am indeed fortunate to be chairman of the trustees of the National Maritime Museum and part of my good fortune is to enjoy the support of trustees who represent a very broad spectrum indeed, ranging as they do from an Admiral of the Fleet who is 25 years senior to me in the Navy List. through a distinguished astronomer and scientist, a distinguished retired Permanent Under-Secretary from Whitehall and a distinguished solo circumnavigator, to our last trustee, whose name has already been mentioned, Sir Nigel Broackes, who is chairman of the company which owns Cunard. So I enjoy support from a broad spectrum. My colleagues and I, and indeed the director and the staff at the museum, welcome the Bill. We are very ready to accept our responsibility for the buildings; but we have some matters of concern which have been outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson.
I am sure your Lordships will he familiar with the architectural magnificence and the beautiful setting of our museum. It includes, as the noble Lord has already said, the Queen's House, Inigo Jones's first palladian building in this country, and the old Royal Observatory built by Christopher Wren for Charles II. But I regret that under the previous regime these
396
buildings were not maintained in the best condition, and certainly not one which satisfies the trustees.
We inherit a backlog of important maintenance: the reroofing of practically all the buildings, the rewiring, the installation of modern climate-control systems, and so on. All that requires a five-year programme which has been costed at £19·5 million at 1988 prices. That figure was arrived at by a comprehensive independent survey and it has been agreed as correct with the Property Services Agency. Included in that is the last year of the five-year restoration project of the Queen's House. Then we had to tackle the old Royal Observatory, and I am sure that your Lordships are very familiar with the problems of restoring buildings of that age and with the horrors encountered as soon as you start. We are very worried about the old Royal Observatory. Wren, like many of his successors, was pressed for money when it was built. He built it from secondhand materials on the foundations of Duke Humphreys' 15th century castle; so your Lordships can imagine what is likely to happen when we start getting to grips with the maintenance of that. Faced with that programme, we seek to be reassured that the trustees will be allocated adequate resources to enable them to meet their responsibilities.
We have also another matter of concern, which is our income. Your Lordships will be well aware that national museums and galleries have been encouraged to generate their own income to pay for improvements in the development of their displays and exhibitions. The annual grant from Her Majesty's Government is barely adequate to cover the day-to-day running expenses. I am glad to say that the National Maritime Museum is being particularly successful in its commercial enterprises. We were the first to introduce admission charges. Perhaps here I may tell the noble Lord, Lord Graham. that far from discouraging visitors, numbers have risen steadily every year since we introduced charges. I am afraid that he has been misled by the figures in the report from the Museums and Galleries Commission, of which I used to be a commissioner, because they date back historically to the days before admission was charged, when the counting of visitors was notoriously inaccurate. However, I can assure him that since we introduced charges, our admissions have risen by roughly between 10 per cent. to 12 per cent. a year until last year, when, thanks to the Armada exhibition, our attendance figures went up by 70 per cent. That is, from 400,000-plus to 700,000-plus.
We intend to go on from this new high level of attendance by increasing the attractions of the museum in its permanent displays and by staging a major exhibition every year on the lines of Armada. This year Armada will be succeeded by Mutiny on the Bounty which will be even more dramatic than the exhibition which I hope everyone enjoyed seeing last year. In addition, we plan a series of major international touring exhibitions. The first of these, a magnificent exhibition on Captain Cook, has already attracted three-quarters of a million visitors during six months at Expo '88 in Brisbane. There were more visitors to the Captain Cook exhibition in Brisbane

397
than to the National Maritime Museum during the whole of last year.
The Captain Cook exhibition is about to set off on a tour of seven major cities in Australia and New Zealand. In fact, I am going out to Perth in about a fortnight's time to open its first solo venue. This is a joint enterprise with Australian business partners, with whom we shall share the profit. That profit will come to the museum as engendered income. Our aim with all these and other marketing enterprises is to build up an endowment fund from which we shall be able to finance a continual improvement and development programme for the museum at Greenwich.
It would he quite wrong if our success in engendering income were to he penalised by a reduction in our funding for building maintenance so that we had to use our income to maintain the fabric of our buildings; and it is on that point that I seek reassurance. We have of course discussed these points with the Minister for the Arts. I am glad to say that we enjoy his strong support, and we are much encouraged by the great interest he takes in our affairs. In supporting this Bill, I thought it right to record those matters of concern.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this has been a useful debate and perhaps I may quickly try to answer some of the questions that have been raised. Nearly all of them concerned finance. I can say that although the Bill will allow the method of funding to he altered, it is neutral on the question of the level of that funding. The funds which the Government provide will he channelled direct to the museum rather than to the PSA. I would add that the National Maritime Museum has been allocated its share of the substantial increases in building programme funds which we have been able to make available to the national museums and galleries. Provision for the current year 1988–89 stands at £2.37 million. This will rise next year to £3.45 million. In addition to these public funds, as I think your Lordhships are aware, the National Maritime Museum raises its own funds from its trading activities and from private sector donations. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, the development appeal has been a notable success.
I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, seriously expects me to answer his categoric question. Indeed. I think he would believe me to be very naive if I committed any government of any colour to an open-ended commitment of the kind he had in mind. However, he also asked me about the successful fundraising being offset against grant-in-aid. My right honourable friend in another place has given a commitment that successful fund-raising by the national museums and galleries will not affect the level of grant-in-aid. The funds they raise can be used in addition. The museum can retain these, without any offset, to improve the museum's facilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked about admission charges. The decision to introduce charges and the level of such charges is one for the trustees to take. They are best placed to decide what is in the best interests of the museum. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, also mentioned the drop in attendances
398
after charging had been introduced; but the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, will confirm that attendances have in fact increased after that initial drop.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Baroness, I must apologise, but the dilemma is that the noble and gallant Lord said that in fact there never was an initial drop. I was misled by the statistics, because they showed me that something like a drop of 36 or 39 per cent. occurred in the first year, 1985. Subsequently they appeared to have been rising at the level of about 16 per cent. All I wished to say was that if that was as a result of the charges—I am referring to the initial drop—the trustees appeared to be more concerned with getting more people in than perhaps saving money.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that is a very interesting explanation.
As regards the alterations, the Bill is subject to normal planning consents and, where appropriate, to the more stringent arrangements for listed buildings and ancient monuments in Clause 1(4). Further, the Bill retains the provision contained in the 1934 Act which rules out absolutely the demolition of Queen's House and the colonnades, and that is a totally implausible thought anyway. However, the statutory protection is there.
I think that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, has more than replied to the rather curious question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, concerning trustees. I do not think that I need say any more on that score. In the interests of those who are here, and those who are waiting. I hope that I have at least clarified some of the points raised by your Lordships. However, if any noble Lord would like me to write to him, I shall be delighted to do so. In conclusion, I should like to thank your Lordships for the broad support which has been given to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Agriculture Improvement (Variation) (No. 3) Scheme 1988
7.41 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 28th November 1988 be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the House may recall my right honourable friend the Minister's announcement on 28th November about changes in farm capital grants. He explained that following a review of the current arrangements we hoped to introduce a new grant scheme in February. To prepare for the new scheme, the Agriculture Improvement Scheme (or AIS) was closed from the day following the announcement. The statutory instrument before us today enforces that closure for the nationally-funded part of the scheme. The closure of the partly EC-funded part is covered by the

399
Agriculture Improvement (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations, which were laid before Parliament at the same time as this instrument but which are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The new Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme (which will be the subject of a separate debate very soon, I hope) has of course to be cleared by the European Commission before it can be implemented. Discussions on it are still continuing in Brussels but should be concluded shortly. However, for reasons which I shall mention later we did not feel it right to delay an announcement about our intentions until every detail was settled. Although this meant our accepting no new applications for improvement plans under the AIS, all those which were already approved or which had been submitted and were awaiting approval are unaffected by the closure. Similarly, investments outside an improvement plan on which farmers can demonstrate they had already committed themselves by midnight on 28th November will qualify for grant.
There are also a few exceptions to the moratorium. The 45 per cent. grants for the replacement of heated glasshouses will remain in place until the end of November this year, as had been announced before the closure. In addition, the special grants for improvement of the quality and marketing of flower production in the Isles of Scilly which were introduced from 17th November and which your Lordships debated just before Christmas will continue until the new scheme is introduced. They will then be continued unchanged in that scheme.
In addition, under the terms of the instrument, farmers who have claims outstanding for eligible work under the nationally-funded part of the AIS will have to submit their claims no later than 31st May. Those with a current improvement plan who are debarred by the rules from submitting such claims during the life of their plan will have one month after the formal termination of their plan to submit those claims.
I am aware that the closure of the AIS may have caused problems for some people and I sympathise with those difficulties. However, if we had announced the outline of our proposed new scheme without closing the existing one there would have been an incentive for farmers to put in speculative applications for improvement plans to try to secure those grants we had decided to discontinue, or on which the rate may be different under the new scheme. That would have undercut the purpose of the changes. It would also, I am bound to say, have led to a rush of expenditure for which we have no provision. We remain, however, determined to keep the break in our grant schemes as short as we possibly can. We are working hard on finalising the details of the new scheme which we look forward to bringing before the House at a very early date. I commend this instrument to your Lordships.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 28th November 1988 be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Trumpington.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the remarks she made in speaking to the proposal that the Motion be approved. When we looked at the No. 2 order quite recently—affecting as it did the Isles of Scilly—I said that there might possibly be a few more detailed comments in respect of this one. I hope that in the time available to us she will accept that the points I wish to raise are considered by us to be of some consequence.
The speech tonight follows on from the Written Answer which appeared in the Official Report on 29th November last year (at col. 294) in which the new scheme entitled the Farm Conservation Grants Scheme was announced as being introduced in February 1989—subject, as the noble Baroness said this evening, to the provisions of that scheme being agreed with the EC Commission. This evening the noble Baroness said that negotiations are going on, that there is hope for finality soon and that she hopes the changes indicated in the Written Answer will be implemented as they appeared there.
We are anxious to have a debate on the new scheme because we regard it as being of considerable importance, and I wonder whether it is possible to say at this stage if such a debate is likely to be sooner rather than later. More important, perhaps, I should like to know whether any further changes will be possible in the scheme in the light of any debate which we may have on it.
We are all conservationists now, but farmers at this time are also being urged to continue diversification in anticipation of even tougher CAP price regimes. In that connection I can mention the speech of the Minister's right honourable friend to the Oxford Farm Conference, and the joint Ministry of Agriculture and Department of the Environment brochure which came my way this morning concerning planning permission and the environment.
Further, there are the farm business clinics sponsored by ADAS, together with the Rural Development Commission and certain local authorities. Do not all those endeavours suggest a likely demand for access to new farm enterprises? If that is so, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness why, under the new scheme, grants for roads are being discontinued. Those who have more experience of refused planning applications than I have are well aware that poor access is very frequently given by local authorities as a reason for refusing planning consent. Therefore we find it strange that in the scheme now before us grants for roads have been discontinued.
As good conservationists, we welcome proposals for controls in respect of the storage, treatment and disposal of slurry and silage effluent, including, I am happy to say yet again, a series of country-wide meetings arranged by ADAS in conjunction with certain trade interests.
We are also happy to note the proposal to continue enhanced rates for replacing old wooden glasshouses with modern aluminium houses. That will be a considerable help to horticulture in enabling that industry to meet the growing Spanish and Portuguese

401
competition flowing from their entry into the European Community.
In the statement this evening no mention was made of the continuance of orchard replanting grants. But in the original statement those were also included, along with the grants for horticulture. We are perhaps less enthusiastic about the principle of continuing tree-planting grants, but we are in favour of some examination of the orchard replanting grant system at present. I notice that the Apple and Pear Development Council's future is now subject to the usual quinquennial review, and 1 think it is important in the context of that review to take account of the grant position for replanting.
The French dominance of the apple market is of considerable concern to us. It is a continuing and ongoing feature and we feel that perhaps an organisation such as Food From Britain might be asked to look at the whole question and in particular the way in which retailers apparently give such precedence to French apples in their shops. For example, the Apple and Pear Development Council report for 1988 gives the UK production of apples in 1987 at 260,500 tonnes. Imports were 443,340 tonnes, of which no less than 248,562 tonnes came from France. Thus the apple market is supplied as to 37 per cent. from the United Kingdom and 63 per cent. imported.
Even allowing for the fact that 1987 was the year of the hurricane in late October, these are disappointing figures. They continue a trend which has been apparent for some years. I think it is important, having regard to this trend, to consider the question in greater detail before we continue for a further period, as specified on 29th November, with grants for replanting. I am not saying that they should not be continued, I am saying that we should have a clearer idea of what the future is for the home industry before we use further sums of money for that enterprise.
These are the few comments we have on the proposal. I do not expect the noble Baroness to reply to any or all of them this evening. On the whole we welcome the order and we look forward to an early debate on the proposals themselves once they have received the blessing of the European Commission.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is jolly bad luck on the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, because I shall reply to one or two of his points since I have just sufficient time, I think. Perhaps I may thank him very much indeed for what he said. I hope that the debate, which is a matter for the usual channels, will be sooner rather than later. The sooner the better from our point of view, but the noble Lord will realise that this is a matter of when the proposals are cleared through the EC. No amendments can be made to the new scheme as a result of this debate on it. It will be monitored, as are other schemes, but any changes will be made in the light of experience. The noble Lord will understand that as the negotiations are going on in the EC, we do not want to delay them any more.
With regard to roads, it is clear that certain grants which have helped to stimulate the productive
402
capacity of the industry in the past are less appropriate in the present circumstances. The grants for roads are counted among them. The new scheme concentrates particularly on environmentally beneficial items.
The apples and pears are a little outside this evening's debate, but I should like to say how very glad I was that the tree planting scheme is to be continued. I also wish to say how glad I am that the House of Lords catering department is now selling British apples. On that happy note, perhaps I may conclude that your Lordships will approve this instrument. I look forward to an early debate on the new scheme.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.55 to 8.5 p.m.]

Children Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 33 [Interim orders.]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 27, line 44, alter first ("order") insert ("or").
The noble and learned Lord said: With this amendment I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 171 and 172. Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 would remove the reference to residence orders in Clause 33(1), which would then state that in adjourned care or supervision proceedings the court may make an interim care order or interim supervision order.
These are consequential amendments linked with government Amendment No. 27, which. I moved on 19th December and which amended Clause 7(4) of the Bill to make proceedings under Part IV of the Bill family proceedings, so that the court in such proceedings would have power to make Section 7 orders.
Amendment No. 172 is a further consequential amendment which would remove the requirement that the court be satisfied, before making a residence order when care or supervision proceedings are adjourned, that the circumstances with respect to the child are as mentioned in Clause 26(2). It would also reproduce in similar terms the present subsection (4) as a new subsection (3), except for the reference to a contact order, which, as a result of Amendment No. 27, is now unnecessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 27, line 45, leave out ("or a residence order").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 171A;
Page 28, line 2, after ("unless") insert ("(i)").
The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 171B. The purpose of these two amendments is to clarify the circumstances in which interim care orders may be made. The first amendment follows the recommendation made in the Review of Child Care Law and was largely accepted by the Government at paragraph 61 of the White Paper.
Whether or not an interim care order is made may have a profound effect on the child and also the eventual outcome of the case. At present the law relating to grounds and the number of orders that can be obtained is most unsatisfactory. Clause 33 is therefore to be welcomed.
The Review of Child Care Law recommended that:
"the court should have to apply a purposive test before it may make an interim order: that detention or removal of the child is necessary in order to safeguard the child's welfare during the interim period. In our view the order should he both protective of the child and necessary, given the crucial influence an interim care order may have … Our proposal would particularly require assessment of the local authority's plans for the child when an interim care order is made".
A form of this test has been applied by some inner London juvenile courts. In October 1984 a memo was issued to magistrates proposing the following test. The memo stated:
"Is this a case on the balance of probabilities where on the evidence we have heard the local authority should have responsibility for this child until the next hearing date. and not the parents'?"
We understand that that test has focused the court's attention on the necessity or otherwise of removal. It will be argued that Clause 1(4) applies to the making of interim care orders; namely, that in considering whether to make an order the court shall not make the order unless it considers that doing so would be better than making no order at all. That point has been quoted several times.
The clause was originally drafted by the Law Commission in relation to private law disputes between parents and others. It is a very different matter to consider whether to remove a child from its parents into care, albeit on an interim basis.
The wording of Clause 1(4) raises a presumption that an order will not be made. That may not be appropriate in care matters when the state has intervened because of concerns for the child's welfare. The amendment therefore requires the court to look actively at the necessity or otherwise of removal before making an interim care order. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not believe that there is much difference of opinion between us on the result to be achieved. Clause 33(2) already provides that a court may not make an interim care order or an interim supervision order,
"unless it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the circumstances with respect to the child are as mentioned in section 26(2)".
Unless the court is reasonably satisfied that the grounds are made out at that stage it should not make the order. Once the court is so satisfied, the amendment seeks a provision which would require the court to consider both the welfare of the child and
404
the necessity for the order before making an interim care order. Clause 1 of the Bill already achieves that, and it does so comprehensively.
I cannot understand why that general provision is not applicable here. The noble Baroness suggested that different considerations might apply, but the ultimate question is whether the order is necessary and whether it ought to be done. Clause 1(4) is a comprehensive and general test of that point.
I believe that there is some benefit in having a code which usually applies. A court will get used to that code and Clause 1(4) is appropriate to deal with the matter. The other parts of Clause 1 relating to welfare, the checklist, and so on, also apply and I should not like it to be felt that only some of those provisions applied. Therefore I prefer if at all possible to rely on Clause 1 at every stage so that the full protection of that clause is afforded. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that we have achieved that result in the Bill as it stands.
Baroness David: I am becoming quite used to the answer that Clause 1 covers absolutely everything. That seems to have been the reply to a great many of the amendments which I have proposed.
I shall obviously have to consider yet again what the noble and learned Lord has said and consult as to whether Clause 1 is adequate in the circumstance and whether I shall bring the amendment back at the next stage. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 171B not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 28. line 5, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
("(3) Where, in any proceedings on an application for a care order or supervision order, a court makes a residence order with respect to the child concerned, it shall also make an interim supervision order with respect to him unless satisfied that his welfare will be satisfactorily safeguarded without an interim order being made.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 28, line 15, after ("An") insert ("interim").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 173 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 174. Both amendments are straightforward.
Amendment No. 173 is intended to make clear that the provisions in Clause 33(5) about duration apply to interim orders made by virture of that section and not to any Section 7 order which may be made. Amendment No. 174 would revise subsection (5)(d) to provide that an interim order made where a court gives a direction under Clause 32(1) shall be brought to an end on the disposal. not the first hearing, of an application for a care order or supervision order by the authority. That applies to cases in family proceedings other than care and supervision proceedings where the court directs that the local authority should investigate the child's circumstances and makes an interim order. I beg to move.
On Question. amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 28, line 24, leave out ("first hearing") and insert ("disposal").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 174A:
Page 28, line 43, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
("(9) No court shall include a direction under subsection (7) unless it is satisfied, where the child has sufficient understanding to make an informed decision, that he consents to its inclusion.").
The noble Baroness said: The aim of the amendment is to prevent the compulsory medical examination of a child legally competent to consent and who is the subject of an interim care order. The amendment brings directions by the court for medical examination of children into line with the law on consent. That is already acknowledged in the Bill. Under paragrahs 2 to 5 of Schedule 3 the court cannot order medical examinations or treatment as a supervision requirement unless it is satisfied that where the child has sufficient understanding to make an informed decision he consents to it.
It is not clear why under subsections (7) to (9) of Clause 33 that requirement is specifically exempted. Department of Health officials agree that doctors would be bound by the law on consent and would not have to comply with such an order if satisfied that the young person was of sufficient understanding to refuse to be examined. However, the law is not altogether clear on that point. Social workers who arrive at a surgery brandishing a court order for examination may well demand that the doctor carry it out, and the doctor may well feel obliged to do so. A court order under statute appears to be and may possibly be a more powerful right than the common law right under Gillick.
In many circumstances children will not be of sufficient understanding to refuse examination. However, where they are we are faced with alarming scenarios. Will doctors be strapping down screaming 15 year-olds or knocking them out under sedatives? The events of Cleveland have made clear that professional abuse by courts, social workers and doctors can often add to abuse by parents and in some cases be the only abuse the child suffers. Courts should surely take steps to ensure that such events do not occur. Interim care order can last up to eight weeks if they are renewable. That is quite enough time for the court to satisfy itself as to the consent of the child. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I think that the amendment the noble Baroness has moved raises a question which it would he desirable to clarify. I cannot accept the amendment as it stands because I would want to keep the substance of subsection (9) as at present, but I should like to consider adding to it to deal with the point that the noble Baroness has raised rather than leaving it to a general law. If the noble Baroness is prepared to accept that, I shall do my best to bring forward a proper amendment.
Baroness David: Thank you very much indeed. I am very grateful for that undertaking.
I have another amendment to be dealt with later which also concerns medical examination. I wonder
406
whether the noble and learned Lord could say whether he would take the same line in respect of that amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: The point appears to hold good in relation to both amendments, so far as I can judge.
Baroness David: If the noble and learned Lord is willing to consider the matter I shall be extremely grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [Power of court to make section 7 orders in care and supervision proceedings]:
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Lord Chancellor: I am taking the unusual step of asking that Clause 34 should not stand part of the Bill. It served two purposes, both of which will be achieved by other means. First, subsections (1) and (2) gave a court in care or supervision proceedings the same power to make Section 7 orders as it has in family proceedings. As I explained a short while ago in relation to Amendments Nos. 170 and 171, Amendment No. 27 which the Committee kindly agreed to on 19th December achieves the same effect as those two subsections and therefore renders them unnecessary. That amendment inserted proceedings under Part IV of the Bill, which includes applications for care and supervision orders, into the definition of family proceedings, thereby attracting the power to make Section 7 orders which is conferred by Clause 9. As a result, Clause 34(1) and (2) adds nothing. This is a neater way of achieving the same result.
One is left with Clause 34(3). That subsection requires a court, in care and supervision proceedings, to make a supervision order in the circumstances listed in paragraphs (a) and (b). The effect of the subsection will be retained by an amendment to he tabled to reintroduce the substance of Clause 34(3) in an appropriate place in the Bill. It would be rather subsidiary. It would not be sensible to have it standing by itself. Essentially, this is an improvement in the drafting of the Bill. I beg to move that Clause 34 do not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: It must be a very rare event that the Minister in charge of a Bill gives notice of his intention to oppose the Question that Clause 34 stand part of the Bill. It may be a harbinger of things to come. Who knows'? We understand the reason for it and accept the Motion.
On Question, Clause 34 negatived.
Clause 35 [Discharge and variation etc. of care orders and supervision orders]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): I should say that if Amendment No. 174E is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 175, which is pre-empted.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 174B:
Page 29. line 24, leave out ("or supervision order").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 174B, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 174C, 174D and 174E. These amendments are intended to simplify the provisions on discharge and variation of care orders and supervision orders which are at present set out in Clause 35(1)(2) and (3), by dealing with care orders and supervision orders separately in two rearranged subsections. There are no substantive changes resulting from this rearrangement except that, as proposed by my noble friend in Amendment No. 175, provision is made for applications by the supervisor to vary a supervision order.
The result of these amendments will be to create one subsection for supervision orders and a similar one for care orders. The only difference between them is that, apart from the child and person with parental responsibility, it is the local authority that may apply for variation or discharge of a care order and a supervisor of a supervision order. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: It seems to me that in Amendment No. 174E my noble and learned friend has achieved the result that I was seeking in Amendment No. 175 and I shall not move that amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 174C, 174D and 174E:
Page 29. line 26, leave out ("or").
Page 29, line 27, at end insert (":or
(c) the local authority designated by the order.").
Page 29, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 31 and insert—
("(2) A supervision order may be varied or discharged by the court on the application of—

(a) any person who has parental responsibility for the child:

(b) the child himself: or

(c) the supervisor.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 175 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 29. line 36, leave out subsection (5).
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment which, like the deletion of Clause 34, follows from proceedings under Part IV, being classed as family proceedings in Clause 7. This seems to be a neater drafting method of achieving the same result. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Representation of child and of his interests in certain proceedings]:
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 30, line 9, leave out ("unless satisfied that it is not necessary to do so in order to safeguard his interests.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 177 removes the qualification that a guardian ad litem
408
need not be appointed in every case to be specified by regulations. The chief practical argument for removing the qualification contained in Clause 36(1) is that, while it may at first seem to be the case that the child's interests do not need specific representation, it frequently becomes clear as the case progresses that matters are more complex than they originally appeared to be and a guardian ad litem ought indeed to have been appointed. By that time it may be too late for a guardian ad litem to become effectively involved in the case, and the outcome may well not be in the child's best interests at all. The regulations referred to in Clause 36(6)(g) can provide sufficient control over categories of case in which a guardian ad litem is unnecessary. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: We accept that the courts are unlikely to find many cases in which it would not be appropriate to appoint a guardian to represent the child's interests. However, there may be some—perhaps a straightforward case involving an older child who has already instructed his own solicitor. In any case, the court can call for a welfare report under Clause 6 of the Bill from a probation officer or a local authority: and there may be some circumstances in which the court considers it appropriate. If the courts find it is not necessary to appoint a guardian, we think that the courts should not be obliged to do so. As an indication of the Government's expectation in this area, the Committee will notice that the precise wording of this provision changes the emphasis of the present law. Under that the court is generally required to appoint a guardian only if the court thinks it is necessary to do so to safeguard the child's interest; otherwise a guardian will not be appointed.
We have deliberately changed the emphasis to place a more positive duty on the court. The Bill imposes a presumption in favour of the appointment of a guardian unless there is some good reason for not doing so, so that the essence of the emphasis which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, seeks by this amendment is put, but leaving open the point that in some cases it may turn out not to be necessary. It seems an unnecessary trouble to appoint an unnecessary guardian.
Lord Banks: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation which seems to me to be satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 30, line 14, at end insert ("and
(c) he under a duty to instruct a solicitor for the child in the manner prescribed by such rules').
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to make sure, so far as it is possible to do so in an Act of Parliament, that children are properly represented in care proceedings. As it stands, the clause has led to the fear that the appointment of a guardian ad litem is to be an alternative to a solicitor. I remember that we had an earlier discussion about that point. It may well be that what the guardian ad litem thinks is good for the child, is quite unacceptable to that child.
The Magistrates' Courts (Children and Young Persons) Rules, 1968 currently provide, in Rule 16(6)(c), that a guardian shall obtain the views of the court as to whether the infant should be legally represented, and, unless the court otherwise directs, instruct a solicitor to represent the infant. While it may well be the Government's intention not to change that rule, it is thought by the Law Society and others that there ought to be some express provision in the Bill. That concludes my remarks on that matter.
It may be convenient to discuss now Amendment No. 180. That is to say, that where circumstances are such that a child needs to be represented by a solicitor, a court should be under a duty to appoint one and not merely be given the power to do so. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: As the noble and learned Lord has said, the rules of court currently prescribe circumstances in which a guardian ad litem shall instruct a solicitor for the child. It was our intention to continue to make provision for this matter in court rules. This would he one of the matters covered by Clause 36(2)(b) which places the guardian:
"under a duty to safeguard the interests of the child in the manner prescribed by such rules".
Under Clause 36(5) a solicitor appointed by virtue of this section shall represent the child in accordance with the rules of court. The words,
"a solicitor appointed by virtue of this section"
were included specifically to take account of the fact that rules will provide for a guardian to appoint a solicitor for the child, when one has not been appointed, and instruct him.
Rules under Clause 36(5) will then require the solicitor to represent the child in accordance with the guardian's instructions. It should be borne in mind that there may be some circumstances where it is not appropriate for the guardian to instruct a solicitor on behalf of the child. First, an older child who is capable of doing so may wish to give his own instructions. This is a situation which is already provided for under the existing rules. We do not think that the duty of a guardian to instruct a solicitor should apply in those circumstances.
Secondly, at the point at which no solicitor or guardian ad litem has been appointed we would not wish to prevent a child who is competent to do so from instructing his own solicitor if he wished to do so. We think that he should continue to have the right.
Thirdly, if a solicitor has already been appointed for the child it is not necessary for the guardian to be under a duty to do so. These are examples which suggest that this matter is best dealt with under rules of court. We shall certainly wish to take account of these matters in making such rules.
I hope that the noble Lord will feel that it is right that it should be provided for in that way. The position depends on rules. We believe it right not to put the matter into primary legislation. It is a matter that should be dealt with by rules.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may say immediately and I know that my noble and learned friend
410
agrees—that it is perfectly acceptable that it should be in the rules provided that it is understood that the matter will be covered. If the rules merely said there was the duty to consider instructing a solicitor—to cover the points made by the noble and learned Lord—we should be content with that also.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: In the circumstancs, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 30, line 16, leave out from ("solicitor") to end of line 17.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 179 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 180 and 181 to which, with the leave of the Committee, I should also like to refer. Amendment No. 179 deletes all reference to the conditions set out in subsection (4) since Amendment No. 181 seeks to delete subsection (4).
The purpose of this part of the Bill is to ensure that in any circumstances where the child in care is not represented by a solicitor, a solicitor may be appointed by the court to represent him or her. Subsection (3) reads:
"Where the child concerned is not represented by a solicitor … the court may appoint a solicitor to represent him".
The amendment is intended to be combined with Amendment No. 180 which seeks to make it mandatory for the court to appoint a solicitor to represent the child. Assuming that Amendment No. 180 were passed, the Bill would then read,
"Where the child concerned is not represented by a solicitor, the court shall appoint a solicitor to represent him".
Amendment No. 181 removes the subsection setting out conditions to be met before the court appoints a solicitor to represent the child. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 179 and 181 is to establish unequivocally the child's right to legal representation whatever the view of the court or the child may be on the matter and whether or not a guardian ad litem has also been appointed.
It is important to reiterate that the respective roles of the solicitor and the guardian ad litem are not the same. As a minor the child is exceedingly vulnerable in court proceedings and the statutory right to legal representation is essential to ensure that the child's wishes are given due account in such proceedings. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I have added my name to Amendments Nos. 179 and 181. The NSPCC recognises that guardians ad litem play a key role in protecting the child's best interests and provide a source of expert and independent opinion to the court. However, the guardian ad litem cannot act as an advocate for the child. I believe that the earlier debate did not pick up that point. If there is a difference of view between the child and the guardian, the guardian will put forward his or her own opinion to the court, not that of the child. Unless the child has a solicitor to represent him, the court will not hear the child's view.
As Clause 36 is drafted, it appears to restrict the child's access to a solicitor and implies that the court may appoint a solicitor only in cases where no

411
guardian ad litem has been appointed. Accepting that guardians will be appointed in the vast majority of cases, does this mean that the child will not be legally represented in most cases? There may be a presumption that the guardian will instruct a solicitor to represent the child. If this is so. the Act will be much strengthened by making this explicit. It is essential that the child continue to be legally represented in addition to the role played by the guardian ad litem.
I should he most grateful if my noble and learned friend could clarify that point. I am not sure that he did so at an earlier stage.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I may deal with Amendments Nos. 179, 180 and 181 together. They would have the effect of placing a duty on the court to appoint a solicitor for the child in circumstances where the child is not represented by a solicitor. This would be an absolute duty as Amendment No. 181 would remove the conditions that the current draft imposes.
I sympathise with the aim of these amendments. It is to emphasise the child's right to a solicitor. However, for the following reasons I hope to persuade the Committee that the Bill already makes sufficient provision for this. In addition, the rules made under the Bill will, I think, operate more appropriately and more fairly than would be the case under the proposed amendment.
To deal with the point of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, I should remind the Committee that the child will be a party to the proceedings and as such will always be entitled to legal representation. That is the present position and it will continue under rules of court made under Clause 70. It is a general principle that a party to legal proceedings is entitled to be represented by a solicitor.
I have a number of particular reservations about the amendments. First, we think that the guardian ad litem should be responsible for appointing a solicitor in the first instance when one has not been appointed by the court. This is the present position. I hope that I have already made clear in connection with Amendment No. 178 that we should continue to make such provision. We should not wish to enforce an absolute duty on the court to appoint a solicitor where the child did not have one. The advantage of Clause 36(4) is that it highlights circumstances in which we would look to the court to make the appointment of a solicitor. It is a positive provision. Secondly, where the child is competent to appoint his own solicitor we think that he should have the right to do so in the absence of, or in advance of, any guardian ad litem appointment by the court.
The amendment would preclude a child of sufficient age from instructing his own solicitor as he would have to leave this matter to the court. It might also prevent a child who is competent to do so from instructing a solicitor in circumstances where the child's instructions and those of the guardian conflict.
In these circumstances the present position is that the child's instructions prevail. We consider that this should continue to be the case. The guardian ad litem
412
picks a solicitor to represent the child. It is then the child's views—if the child has views—that that solicitor has to put forward. The condition in Clause 36(4)(b) gives the court power to appoint a solicitor for a child who wants one and who is of sufficient understanding to instruct the solicitor. It does not prevent the child instructing a solicitor directly without involving the courts.
Finally, there may be rare cases in which a guardian has been appointed but decides that no solicitor is needed. The condition in Clause 36(4)(c) as drafted allows the court in that situation to appoint a solicitor to represent the child. We should not wish to lose any of these conditions.
I hope that what I have said will reassure the Committee that the amendments sought are neither necessary nor desirable as the child's right to legal representation is very well provided for.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble and learned friend for explaining the matter so carefully. What worries me is this. He said, "We wish to preserve the present position". The NSPCC is very experienced in these affairs. I have not had advice but I can only imagine that it picked up this point because the present position may not be working. I should like to put that suggestion to my noble and learned friend. There is perhaps need for examination to see whether the present position works. If it does not, something else may be required. I do not wish to press the point but I hope that my noble and learned friend will take up the arguments that have been made. We shall certainly examine the situation with great care.
Lord Banks: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of the reasons why he thinks that the amendments are not necessary. I should like to read and consider that and see whether we come to the same conclusion as him or whether we want to pursue this further. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 180 and 181 not moved.]
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 181A:
Page 30, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) in which the court is considering an application to keep a child in secure accommodation:").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 36(6) lists the proceedings where a guardian ad litem would be appointed. The list does not mention proceedings where a child or young person may be subject to detention in secure accommodation by means of a secure accommodation order under Clause 21. The representation of children receiving these proceedings by a solicitor alone is often sadly lacking. Solicitors doing the work may have little experience or knowledge of secure accommodation and may be unaware of suitable alternatives which could be used. If the child were also represented by a guardian ad litem, it would he possible to have more probing of the decision to place the child in secure accommodation. The consequence of this would be that the court would no longer merely rubber stamp applications, as often appears to happen at present. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I should like to support the amendment. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to accept it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I rise briefly to support the amendment. I know that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has this point in mind in the consideration in depth which he is giving to Amendment No. 52 concerning secure accommodation. Therefore I respectfully ask that this may be taken into account when he is considering the approach of Her Majesty's Government to this matter.
The Lord Chancellor: Certainly we are considering that, but this point we discussed a little in that connection. At that stage my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway proposed that the child should be represented by the Official Solicitor, who would be the normal person to be appointed if a guardian ad litem were required. The noble and learned Lord. Lord Elwyn-Jones, and myself were agreed at that stage that it would not be wise to restrict the child to the Official Solicitor, but the child could have a solicitor of his or her own.
That is the point about the amendment. We do not believe, in this kind of situation where a specific question is at issue, that it will always be appropriate to have a guardian ad litem. But the guardian ad litem would be the person to appoint someone to represent the child where much investigation, welfare reports and the like were required and where there was some question about the child's capacity to instruct a solicitor of his own.
We believe that in a secure accommodation case it would be appropriate for the court to accept representations from the child and from a solicitor of the child's own choice appointed by the child. A solicitor may already be involved in the matter, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said on the last occasion. It is always possible for the court to secure a report. I do not believe that it is wise in this situation to require the court to appoint a guardian ad litem. I can see that on some occasions it might be appropriate but not in all cases, because the welfare side may be dealt with by a report under Clause 6 where that is necessary and what we really want to know is what the child may have to say about the matter. As was pointed out on an earlier amendment, one of the difficulties arising in the wardship jurisdiction where a secure accommodation matter has been requested is that a guardian ad litem may not wish to represent what the child wants because he has a different view of what is in the child's interest. That is the problem of the amendment.
I want to air separately the main considerations that I am considering in connection with the proposal of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. In a way they are more wide ranging, but this is a specific point and that is my answer to it.
Lord Banks: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for their support of the amendment. I should have thought that in a matter of this kind where the welfare of the child is extremely important there would be a case for appointing a
414
guardian ad litem. The noble and learned Lord thinks not. I should like to consider and consult about that and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: For the sake of the record I say briefly that I wholly accept the reasoned approach of my noble and learned friend and agree without reservation that these matters are more properly considered in connection with legal representation on a redraft of Clause 52.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 181B:
Page 30, line 39, leave out ("or supervision order") and insert (",supervision order or any order under section 29").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment would require a guardian ad litem to be appointed in appeal proceedings against the making of or the refusal to make a contact order under Clause 29. This amendment is one to which attention was drawn by my noble friends Lord Mottistone and Lady Faithfull and by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss. It seems an appropriate provision to make. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: The remarks of my noble and learned friend puzzle me greatly. Linked with Amendment No. 181B is Amendment No. 182, which is my amendment. I had fully imagined when I saw Amendment No. 181B linked with Amendment No. 182 that my noble and learned friend intended to accept Amendment No. 161, which installed the contact order in Clause 29.
In that case that would have taken care of Amendment No. 182. Because my noble and learned friend rejected my pleas for Amendment No. 161, it has not now been included in Clause 29. But the way he spoke to his own amendment made me think that he thought it was. I hope that we may have another think about this, and I reserve the right to return to this at the next stage of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 182 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 182A:
Page 31, line 3, leave out ("the establishment or) and insert ("a court welfare service to establish").
The noble Lord said: We are dealing with a very important point here, but that does not mean that we have to deal with it at length. Subsection (7) deals with the very vital matter of the appointment of guardians ad litem and the panels from from which they will come. The clause at present reads:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the establishment of [those] panels".
A great deal of anxiety was expressed at Second Reading—I ventured to include it in my own speech—that the guardians ad litem should be completely independent, otherwise not only will it not be seen that they have an independent role to play, but, being ordinary human beings, they may not be capable of adopting that independence that we want them to

415
have. Among those concerned in the matter are members of the legal profession. If the guardians ad litem are appointed from panels and are funded by and have close links with the local authority, which may be involved as a party to the proceedings, the independence about which I have been talking is by no means apparent.
In some areas the panel administrators are also employed by the local social services department. It could be that a guardian could feel inhibited from expressing an independent view given the involvement of the local authority in the complaints, grievance and disciplinary procedures for the guardians.
We should like to see the setting up of an independent national administration for the guardians. We cannot deal in this Bill with the dream of a family court, although some of us have attempted to do so by one means or another. If there were a family court with a welfare service annexed I believe that it would be a complete answer to the independence which we are seeking in the amendment. At least the amendment would give the Government the power to set up a court welfare service to run the panels of guardians. That would be a step on the way.
In those circumstances, I beg to move the amendment. I know that the noble and learned Lord will realise that every word he utters in answer will be carefully listened to by those who are seeking the complete independence of the panels from which the guardians ad litem are to be selected.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment wholeheartedly. It is an important point. If the panels were to be established by my noble and learned friend or his department, it would be a different issue; but it is not the case. The case is that they are appointed by the Executive. For the reasons that have been given by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with which I and other members of the profession agree, I support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: I doubt whether, as a technical matter, the amendment ensures that guardians ad litem would be provided as a service by the courts instead of by local authorities. It would still be open to the Secretary of State under the regulations to require local authorities to provide the court welfare service.
Guardians ad litem are appointed for particular cases by the court and are responsible to the courts for the decisions that they make. But it is not appropriate to describe the service presently provided for as a court service.
I should like to remind Members of the Committee of my statement in the Second Reading on improving the arrangement in care proceedings. I said then that it is not practicable or desirable to throw over existing machinery wholesale, and that we intended to approach the matter in ordered stages. I announced that the Government have put in hand a programme of work which will extend step by step to examining all aspects of family law and business. As part of that programme, we intend to look at the organisation and function of welfare services. This will not only
416
include the service provided by guardians ad litem in care and related proceedings but also the role of guardians ad litem and reporting officers in adoption cases, the general arrangements for providing welfare reports to the courts by local authorities and the probation service as well as the sole of the Official Solicitor in High Court family proceedings. Any changes to the present arrangements would need to follow a proper review of all those existing and related arrangements, and it would be premature to establish a court-provided service ahead of that review.
As the noble Lord knows, the situation is complicated and extends over the whole country. In the Bill we have provided the Secretary of State with certain powers to establish panels which would not be related to a particular local authority: in other words, for combinations of them. I am anxious to pursue the matter, but it is premature to do so in the way that his amendment provides. We must see what is involved and decide upon the best method of taking the matter forward. Guardians ad litem are only one part of a larger set of present institutions which require to be considered.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Is the review already under way? I do not wish to press the noble and learned Lord too hard, but this is an important matter.
The Lord Chancellor: I have set up the instructions. There is a question of priorities and at the moment my priority is to see this Bill through Parliament. That involves a good deal of effort of one kind and another.
A number of aspects require to be considered. In relation to other amendments, I mentioned the need to make arrangements for picking out selected courts, training, and so forth. There is a great deal to be done and one cannot do it all at once. I am trying to set up a reasonably ordered programme to enable the matters to be overtaken. I have them very much in mind; and, without making too drastic changes at one time, we are trying to improve the situation.
The cases must be dealt with. One cannot afford to stop all the present arrangements. One must continue to use the house, as it were, while carrying out all the alterations. The cases come in and therefore one must have a system under which they can be catered for while looking to make arrangements to improve the situation.
Lord Mishcon: I should like to take up the noble and learned Lord on his apt metaphor. It is true that one must use the house while alterations are being made or considered. I appreciate that. May I take it from what he has said that the noble and learned Lord realises the need for the alterations while we are erecting the house? We are all anxious to see the Bill on the statute book and to help him to achieve that as expeditiously as possible. Otherwise we should not be sitting here at this hour tonight and possibly much later. From what he has said, can one take it that he realises the importance of the independence of the appointments of guardians ad litem; that it should be a national or court administration of some kind; and that they should be completely independent of those who may at some time wish to criticise.

417
Without making the noble and learned Lord adhere to a time limit—which I am not doing—I believe that as long as that matter is under active consideration, it is proper for me to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 31, line 11, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 183, 184, 185, 186, 187 and 188. The amendments to Clause 36(9) seek to establish the independence of guardians ad litem from local authorities. Therefore they follow the same theme that was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in the last amendment. It may be that the noble and learned Lord will say that he has given at least part of his answer, but I believe that the amendments merit separate discussion.
The intention is not to prevent local authorities from being involved in the operation of panels of guardians, but to provide for a framework which will allow a diversity of schemes to continue and which will permit others to take shape so that it becomes possible to learn from experience over time which are the most effective models. It is important that one administrative system is not favoured by the wording of the clause. If all the suggested amendments are accepted by the Government, the amended clause will state that the regulations may, in particular, make provision as to the constitution, administration and procedure of panels; as to the qualification for membership of a panel; as to the training and professional support to be given to members of panels; for monitoring the work of guardians ad litem and as to the co-ordination between panels and the establishment of national professional standards.
Amendment No. 183 removes the requirement by regulation for a number of specified local authorities to operate a panel of guardians ad litem jointly. It does not prevent them from doing so but we consider it extremely important that a framework be established in this legislation which will allow the development of imaginative and effective collaborative arrangements for the operation of panels between voluntary organisations, other professionals and local authorities.
Amendment No. 184 removes the provision for local authorities to defray the expenses of guardians ad litem, obviously to pursue the central theme.
Amendment No. 185 removes the provision by regulation for local authorities to pay fees and allowances to members of guardian ad litem panels.
Amendment No. 186 seeks to secure the availability of ongoing professional support for guardians ad litem. That is to ensure that the professional standing of the guardian ad litem system is maintained through sustained contact with other professionals and the adoption of common standards of working practice to ensure that guardians ad litem have access to relative professionals in a range of other disciplines, especially within the legal profession, and are made aware of the best practices carried out in guardian ad litem work and to counter the isolation felt by individual guardians ad litem, many of whom currently work on a case by
418
case basis, having very little contact with other professionals.
Amendment No. 187 removes the specific requirements in regulations placed on local authorities; in this case, the requirements for specified local authorities to co-operate in providing panels of guardians ad litem in specific areas.
Amendment No. 188 seeks to ensure that there will be a level of co-ordination between panels however diverse different arrangements may be, so that, for example, there will he greater consistency of provisions of guardians throughout the country and common rates of payment to guardians will be established.
I hope that the general purpose of the particular nature of these amendments will he clear to the Committee. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that these amendments are grouped together. Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 186. Representations have been made to me by a number of guardians ad litem that they would greatly welcome professional support from one another and that they would also like, instead of being what one might call a "home industry", to be grouped under a senior person with whom they could consult.
That may not be possible in the near future but they ask me to bring their hopes for the far distant future, at any rate, before the noble and learned Lord.
The Lord Chancellor: The intention of these amendments has been explained. I question whether the amendments go quite as far as their intention, for the same sort of reason as I mentioned in relation to Amendment No. 182A. However, I should like to deal with the matter rather more fully because it is important and I should not like there to be any misunderstanding about it.
Local authorities since 1984 have been responsible for setting up and managing panels of guardians ad litem and reporting officers from which the courts can make appointments in particular cases. The system has been established fairly recently and has been working well in many areas to the considerable benefit of the children concerned. There have been some difficulties but we should prefer to deal with these by building on existing arrangements to make improvements. This would surely seem to be the sensible way forward with a service which has only recently been established.
The powers that we have provided will enable us to do this. One of the main difficulties has been that guardians often represent children in cases where the local authority which manages the panel from which the guardian is appointed appears as applicant to the proceedings. This has led in some areas at least to an apparent conflict of interests. This has riot been a problem where a number of authorities have combined to operate a joint panel and have been able to employ a panel manager who does not also have responsibilities for case management within the social services department. We propose to build on

419
this approach and to make regulations which will facilitate the establishment of regional panels which will be distanced from the local authorities which they serve.
For these reasons we do not support the amendments which would remove the power in Clause 36(9)(b) to require two or more specified local authorities to make arrangements for the joint management of panels. In some areas local authorities have already grouped themselves into consortia to operate joint arrangements. We would not wish to disturb any arrangements which are working well. Neither would we wish to see removed the power in Clause 36(9)(g) for the Secretary of State to require specified local authorities to co-operate in specified areas. We regard this as an essential reserve power if the Secretary of State is to be able to ensure that a nationally co-ordinated service—or one which is not necessarily national but which is co-ordinated—is provided.
There is also a need for a power to pay for self-employed panel members. We therefore cannot agree with the amendments which would remove these powers. I hope Members of the Committee will agree with this.
This brings me to the proposals to provide powers to make regulations as to the professional support to be given to panel members. The difficulty here is that it is not clear what is meant by "professional support". My noble friend has given an illustration of that. The power to combine with a panel manager would meet that point to a considerable extent. If the intention is that panel members working in a professional group should be given appropriate assistance and information to enable them to carry out their work, then I think we would agree that these are necessary. These concerns can be addressed under the powers already provided for in relation to the administration of panels and to training of panel members and monitoring the work of guardians. It would be possible to provide for the appointment of a panel manager whose functions could include the provision of appropriate supervision and for arrangements to be made for access to information, independent advice and assistance. I hope the Committee will feel that the amendment proposed is not necessary.
Moving on to the associated point in Amendment No. 188, which refers to the establishment of national professional standards, there is a commitment within the Government to encouraging high standards. The powers to make regulations in relation to monitoring and training and to qualifications required of panel members should go a long way to providing national professional standards. If the intention is to establish a separate professional qualification for guardians ad litem this is not a matter which is appropriate for regulations but for the professional bodies concerned. It is not in any case an approach which we think is necessary as many of the skills for acting as a guardian ad litem are those which qualified social workers or others with similar qualifications or experience already possess. The power to make regulations as to the qualifications of panel members will help to ensure the maintenance of high standards in this area.
420
I hope the Committee will be reassured that we are seized by the concerns which exist about the management of the guardians ad litem by local authorities. We have every intention of dealing with these concerns by introducing a system of regional panels which can provide continuity with existing arrangements and also stronger regional control. We are satisfied that the powers we have provided will achieve this. In the longer term, as I explained in response to Amendment No. 182A, the arrangement will be reviewed as part of our programme to review all aspects of family business, including court welfare services.
I hope that in the light of those explanations the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment he has moved and not move his later amendments.
Lord Banks: I am again grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for her backing about professional support. I am encouraged by the fact that the noble and learned Lord saw at least some aspects of that which he felt were necessary.
I can see that the grouping together of the local authorities rather than each individual local authority running its own panel would decrease, to some degree, the feeling that the local authority was both judge and jury in the cases which it was presenting. The concept of regional panels seems to he progress along the lines that we want, though as the noble and learned Lord explained some of the proposals in the amendments would run counter to its operation. However, I see hope in that and I should like to discuss that possible development with my colleagues, read what the noble and learned Lord said, and consider whether we can in any way pursue this further at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 183.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 184 to 188 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 188A:
Page 31, line 21, at end insert—
("(i) for specifying the different proceedings in which the official solicitor and guardians ad litem from local panels shall be appointed to represent a child.").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will appreciate that we are dealing with regulations that the Secretary of State may make and, in subsection (9), with the matters for which he may make provision. Therefore, it is useful to see whether something of importance is not in subsection (9) which ought to be there.
We believe—and this is the view of many members of the legal profession—that it would be useful to specify the different proceedings in which the Official Solicitor and guardians ad litem from local panels shall be appointed to represent a child. I pause here for one moment with an apology to the Committee. I appear to have originated, quite wrongly, the phrase "guardian ad litems". I do not know when I said it, but my noble and learned friend said that I did and I always take everything that he says for granted. In case anybody copies my error, I emphasise that I now say "guardians ad litem".
There is a need for clarification. For example, it may be that the Official Solicitor will be asked to act

421
as a child's guardian ad litem in all High Court proceedings or only in family or wardship proceedings. If we have that clarification it will also help where proceedings are transferred from one court to another.
What happens at the moment is that when care proceedings are replaced by wardship proceedings and a guardian has already done work in relation to the proceedings in the magistrates' court, that guardian is usually reappointed by the High Court. However, the High Court is required first to consider appointing the Official Solicitor. The Official Solicitor, we find, is not able to cope with this caseload and such an appointment can waste work done by the guardian who has already been appointed.
Furthermore, there is currently no provision for paying the fees of guardians appointed by the High Court. Many guardians are appointed who face the possibility of not being paid for work which they have done. It is necessary to clarify these matters and to specify the proceedings in which guardians and the Official Solicitor are empowered to act. These will be matters of guidance. The regulation should provide for them. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I seek clarification as to the position of the Official Solicitor. This is relevant to the question of transfer under Clause 29, the subject matter of Amendment No. 225 which stands in my name. My noble and learned friend will be aware of the practice direction in 1988 under which, as regards secure accommodation, the Official Solicitor in wardship cases is always appointed by the High Court. To what degree will his position in this respect be affected by Clause 71 if it is enacted in its present form?
9.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The amendments are unnecessary. Subsection (8) already provides that the Secretary of State's regulation-making power in subsection (7) is not to prejudice the power of the Lord Chancellor to confer or impose duties on the Official Solicitor under Section 90(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. Accordingly, it would allow directions under that Act to give the Official Solicitor duties in any proceedings under the Bill, including those relating to care and supervision orders in the High Court. Regulations about the role of panel guardians ad litem under the Bill would be without prejudice to those duties.
Accordingly, the regulation-making power when exercised in conjunction with the Lord Chancellor's directions would enable us to say in which proceedings the Official Solicitor or a panel guardian should represent the child or, if it were thought desirable, provide for the Official Solicitor to represent the child in the High Court.
Turning to the more substantial issue of how the guardian ad litem's role is to be provided in various tiers of court and in particular in the High Court, I must tell the Committee that the details are still under consideration. The Government are determined, however, that the roles and duties of the guardians ad litem in proceedings under the Bill should be as similar as possible no matter which court the
422
proceedings are heard in. We also intend that the transfer of cases between courts should not delay proceedings unnecessarily by requiring a guardian ad litem who is already involved in a case to be removed and a new one substituted as a matter of course.
As I explained earlier, we are aiming to try to provide a framework under which cases will be allotted by reference to characteristics of the cases. One will try to ensure that the guardian ad litem appointed is an appropriate guardian ad litem having regard to these criteria.
This is another matter to which the Government have come following consultations over last summer and the autumn about introducing a concurrent jurisdiction. Having concluded that concurrency is desirable, we were then faced with the task of integrating the domestic jurisdiction of the magistrates' courts and care proceedings into the structure of the superior courts. That task is well advanced and, in particular, we hope soon to reach a conclusion on how to handle this matter. At the moment we have powers in the Bill to deal with it and no further powers are necessary.
It is a matter of importance to some that guardians ad litem should be properly paid. We are looking into this aspect in relation to the High Court. If necessary, arrangements will be made to secure that the course of justice is not impeded for want of fees for guardians ad litem in appropriate cases.
Lord Mishcon: The rapidity of the noble and learned Lord's reply, both understandable and appreciated at this hour, will make it necessary for me to read calmly in Hansard, possibly not tomorrow but the day after tomorrow, the wise words which he uttered. I know that he will permit me to do that. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 31, line 21, at end insert (; and
(j) for ensuring that the role of the Official Solicitor in any High Court proceedings shall not be affected by the appointment of a guardian ad litem in any inferior court.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is moved for clarification and to seek a measure of assurance. I am reliably informed by learned counsel who regularly appears in children's cases in the High Court on the instruction of the Official Solicitor that there is a measure of apprehension as to whether the existing role of the Official Solicitor is preserved by the clause as it stands, whether it will be preserved under subsection (8) by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in the exercise of his powers, and whether the exercise of those powers will marry with a commencement date for Clause 36, whenever that may be.
One assumes that the existing role of the Official Solicitor will be safeguarded after Royal Assent pending commencement, but there is no transitional provision in Schedule 10 to such effect. A measure of assurance to abate this apprehension to which I have referred would indeed be welcome. If that assurance can be given is it not appropriate that the role of the

423
Official Solicitor in the High Court proceedings should be acknowledged by express provision in primary legislation? However, at this hour, that would be the last thing I would press on your Lordships' Committee.
The Lord Chancellor: Until now the Official Solicitor has had no role at all in care proceedings because he has not been in the High Court. We are looking at the best structure for the safeguarding of the children's interests and the Official Solicitor might possibly have a role. We are trying to make arrangements under which, for example, there would not have to be transfer from one guardian ad litem to another if the case was transferred.
I think it would be right to say that my powers in relation to the Official Solicitor will have to be considered in relation to the whole scheme. I am not really in a position to give any further assurance this evening except to say that the welfare of the children concerned will be my paramount consideration.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps at a later stage of the proceedings some form of assurance might be given by my noble and learned friend as to the apprehensions regarding the Official Solicitor. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Supervision orders]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 86, line 24, leave out ("from time to time by the supervisor") and insert ("by the court").
The noble and learned Lord said: In the unhappy late absence of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies I take his place. Schedule 3 relates to the important matter of supervision orders. Amendments Nos. 190, 191, 192, 193 and 194 may conveniently be taken together. They all arise from Schedule 3. All the amendments have the support of the Children's Legal Centre. They raise matters of importance, but at this hour it may be sufficient for the purposes of our proceedings if I formally move the amendments. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The aim of these amendments is the transfer of the power to give directions to a responsible person and to a child subject to a supervision order made in civil proceedings from the supervisor to the court. Section 12(2) of the Children and Young Person Act 1969 does at present provide that the court may require the child to comply with the directions of the supervisor. Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 maintain that position.
It is essential to the nature of a supervision order that directions to the child are capable of being given. However, I do not believe that in relation to a civil supervision order such directions should be given by
424
the court. A supervisor is appointed in respect of a child and is under a duty to advise, assist and befriend the child. It is therefore the supervisor who will have a continuous relationship with the child throughout the duration of the order and who will determine the type of directions which will be appropriate at any time. It is not possible for the court to maintain such a relationship with the child and it would not be practicable, and in many cases it would not be desirable, to require the supervisor to return to the court whenever he considered that a change in the directions given to the child would be appropriate.
The court can, of course, include various requirements in a supervision order. These include powers to impose certain requirements upon the responsible person; for example, to require the supervised child, subject to his consent where appropriate, to submit to medical or psychiatric examination or treatment. These are specific matters which are not likely to need revision during the life of the order. It is surely right in relation to a civil supervision order that the supervisor should have discretion to tailor other requirements to the prevailing circumstances.
Amendment No. 192 would also remove the qualification in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 that a requirement placed on a responsible person in respect of a supervision order should be subject to the consent of that person. The effectiveness of supervision orders will depend upon a level of cooperation being achieved between supervisor and family. There would be little purpose in imposing a requirement that a person should seek to ensure that a child complies with directions unless that person consented. A supervision order is essentially made in respect of a child, not the responsible person, and what we are seeking to do here is encourage co-operation with a view to helping the child.
In addition, this amendment also seeks to extend the requirements that may be placed on the responsible person to include taking steps to ensure that the child complies with obligations imposed under paragraphs 4 and 5 concerning medical and psychiatric examination and treatment.
I can see much value in encouraging the responsible person to take an active role in these matters generally and I shall be happy to consider this particular point. I really feel that I could not accept these amendments but I am prepared to consider that aspect of Amendment No. 192. I hope that the noble and learned Lord may feel that that is a reasonable response to his amendments.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response to the matters which are set out in the amendments that I have indicated. We shall of course consider carefully what the noble and learned Lord has said, but we are grateful for the knowledge that this aspect of the matter is receiving, and has received, careful consideration. In the circumstances and subject to the possibility of reverting again to these matters at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 192A:
Page 87, line 5, leave out ("requirement imposed") and insert ("direction given").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 192B:
Page 87, line 7, leave out ("obliging") and insert ("requiring").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 192C:
Page 88, line 44, leave out ("one year") and insert ("three years, or such shorter period as may be specified in the order").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment, because one notices that this question of the one-year period differs from the existing provision in Section 17 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 which enables the court to make a supervision order for a period of three years in the first instance. All that I want to try to extract very gently and courteously, I hope, from the noble and learned Lord is whether there is a good reason for doing this, bearing in mind that there may well be a need in certain cases to avoid a review after one year, and make it unnecessary in cases where right from the start it is apparent that a three-year period seems appropriate. Such a period, for example, is often useful where the supervision order relates to a very young child, and I am thinking in terms literally almost of a babe, where a three-year period can see the child into school age. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The review of child care law did not consider the duration of supervision orders made in care proceedings. It did recommend that consideration be given to supervision orders in other family proceedings having a limited duration of one year with a power for the court to extend the order at a later date. The court would have the power to impose certain requirements on parents and children and the shorter duration of the supervision order, with a power to extend, would enable the court to tailor its order to the needs of the individual child. The shorter duration would make orders more effective, induce a greater sense of purpose and reduce the risk of undermining parents' confidence in relation to their children.
It would also place the onus on the supervisor to justify the continuation of the order. We accept that reasoning and we feel that it applies equally in respect of all supervision orders made under the Bill. While the court is empowered to impose requirements as well as the supervisor to give directions, any supervision order would be subject to the scrutiny of the court if it is desired that it be extended. In any event, paragraph 6(3) provides that a supervision order may not be extended beyond three years, which of course is the maximum that the noble Lord's amendment seeks. That is my response to the courteous and gentle probe.
Lord Mishcon: And, if I may say so, a very courteous, very polite and very prompt answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 193 and 194 not moved.]
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Orders for emergency protection of children]:
[Amendment No. 194A not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 194B:
Page 31, line 37, after ("not") insert ("immediately").
The noble Lord said: I beg formally to move amendment No. 194B.
The Lord Chancellor: We are in this clause talking about emergency protection of children and I accept that the words "immediate removal" could be said to help to convey this flavour. However, I fear that inclusion of the word "immediately" would undermine the philosophy of the clause. First, the order may be made:
"if, but only if, the court is satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to suffer significant harm if he is not removed".
That itself connotes the urgency which the amendment seeks.
Secondly, removal may not upon investigation need to be immediate. For example, if on the arrival of the holder of the emergency protection order the suspected abuser immediately undertakes to leave and to stay away while the matter is looked into—I think that is a scenario envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in a later amendment—the holder of the order may decide that it is not necessary to remove the child there and then. He may reach the same conclusion if he finds that an allegation of injury to the child appears to be unsubstantiated. The order would run its course and removal would still be possible later while the order remained in force if the circumstances changed and the holder of the order considered that necessary. Circumstances of that kind have to be allowed for. Limiting availability of an emergency protection order to cases in which immediate removal was necessary would place a heavy burden of proof on the applicant for the order and discourage use of the order in the more flexible way that I have outlined. The question for the court to decide is whether the emergency is such that enforced removal can he justified, not when it should take place. I believe that leaving that power to the holder of the order is a benefit, and we would like to retain it.
Lord Mishcon: I am sure that reply will be read very carefully in order to see whether it is a complete answer to the amendment. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 194C:
Page 31, line 40, at end insert ("; or
(c) (i) his parent;
(ii) any person who is not a parent but who has parental responsibility for him; or
(iii) any person with whom the child is living, has failed to comply with a child assessment order without reasonable cause"),
has failed to comply with a child assessment order without reasonable cause").
The noble Lord said: This is an important subject about the child assessment order. Amendment No. 194C is in fact a consequential amendment upon No. 199AB, which is the key amendment for this group. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 196BA, 200A, 200B and 202ZA, all of which are consequential upon Amendment No. 199AB. Further, I believe that we are discussing Amendment No. 202AZA tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady David.
The introduction of an emergency protection order is to be welcomed. The flexibility of the order, forward-looking grounds and rules of court allowing an appeal against the order will be of enormous help in protecting abused children. However, there is cause to question whether the emergency protection order will protect children where there is serious, but not urgent, concern for the child.
The grounds for the imposition of an emergency protection order use the term "significant harm". Indeed, we had much debate about that aspect earlier. That is quite proper. There must be no question of a child being removed from the family home unless there are very good grounds for so doing. An emergency protection order is a dramatic event in the life of a child and should never be used without proper cause.
In the Kimberly Carlile case, the social worker made attempts to get Mrs. Carlile to have Kimberly seen either by a GP, the health visitor or at a health clinic. Those attempts failed and it was not felt appropriate to apply for a place of safety order. The commission of inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Kimberly was quite clear that a medical examination of the child might have saved her life. The report of the inquiry said:
"We think that the criterion for making a Child Assessment Order can properly he broader and more interventionist in scope…To translate that into practical terms, in relation to the case of Kimberly Carlile, we think that Mr. Ruddock (the social worker involved) would have been in a perfect position to apply for such an Order at any time after 10th March, had such a legal power existed".
It is true to say that the emergency protection order makes a provision for medical or psychiatric examination of children and an applicant for the order does not necessarily have to remove the child from the home. However, a child assessment order has several benefits in a serious but not urgent case.
First, parental responsibility is retained by the parents. Secondly, there is no question of the child being removed from his or her home and the child can be seen by their normal family doctor. In the minds of parents those two factors are most important. The vast majority of parents are happy to take their child for an examination and this is accepted as a normal and routine part of bringing up children. Further, the parents also retain responsibility for the child.
The child assessment order will be seen as much less threatening than an emergency protection order and will make it that much easier for a social worker to develop a relationship with parents should this be necessary.
As the emergency protection order stands at present, it will not cover circumstances where there is a nagging concern for the child. If, for example, a
428
neighbour reports that a child is continually heard crying, then a social worker will investigate the case. But the parent may refuse to allow the social worker to see the child and may be hostile and uncooperative. Further, there might be a perfectly innocent explanation for the parent's behaviour. However, what can the social worker do? If there is no possibility of negotiating with the parent the social worker might consider applying for an emergency protection order. It is unlikely that that will be granted, or the emergency protection order will prove to be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The social worker is then left in a quandary. He or she can continue to visit the home in the hope of seeing the child, or take no further action. How much simpler, and more effective, if the social worker could apply for an order directing that the child be medically assessed.
It has been argued, and may be argued further, that a secondary order will be confusing and will result in social workers being unclear as to what order to apply for. This is a problem but one which could be resolved by clear guidelines. It is to be hoped that all social work staff dealing with child abuse will receive training and guidance on what the Children Bill, when it is an Act, will mean. The circumstances in which the different orders will apply could be adequately covered at this stage.
There was much talk earlier about whether the local authorities would be able to read all the Act, and whether they would be included in Schedule 2 as well as in the main body of the Act. My noble and learned friend gave me thought. I certainly think it is essential that local authorities should he trained in order to make sure that they know all the parts of the Act to cover. Likewise, social workers could be trained in how to deal with two orders which are essentially different but equally necessary though not that different in a given situation.
An argument has also been put forward that having two orders available could result in a social worker having to apply to a court on two separate occasions, with the children receiving no protection in the interim period. There are circumstances where this might apply. However, if a parent fails to take the child for an examination, the social worker will immediately apply for an emergency protection order. In other situations where a medical assessment reveals that something is seriously wrong, the social worker will again move to obtain an emergency protection order. It must be better to have the child examined and risk a short interim period than to leave the child at home and be unable to offer him or her any protection at all.
A child assessment order benefits children, parents and social workers alike. It is an additional tool to protect children and covers situations where there is serious but not urgent concern for the child. The order is a potential life-saver and strengthens the powers available to social workers to protect children at risk. It is strongly recommended by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, whose full record I had occasion to give to the Committee earlier this evening. The society has experience, and it has an enormous amount of support from similar bodies.
I know that some people do not perhaps entirely agree with that, but I hope that your Lordships will feel that it is an important addition to this legislation to make sure that a gap which exists is covered. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: I have a deep admiration and respect for the NSPCC, and also for my noble friend Lord Mottistone. Nevertheless, I rise to put a different point of view about the assessment order which he has recommended. I speak as a retired director of social services but I also speak on behalf of the Association of Directors of Social Services in this country. That association does not favour the child assessment order. I do not have the report on Kimberly Carlile, but if I remember aright the social worker did not see the child. Had the social worker done so she would presumably have sought—as this Bill would lay down—an immediate emergency protection order. The visit to the doctor by the child would have had to be put off because if the social worker had seen the child she would have wanted to remove her at once.
Let us look at it from the point of view of the parents. Perhaps it is a good thing—perhaps not—that the country is so conscious at the moment of child sexual abuse that a number of parents are—I shall not say being accused—having a finger pointed at them to suggest that they may be abusing their child. I have evidence that this is happening throughout the country. If a social worker has skills in interviewing and handling people, I contend that it is possible for that social worker to go to the couple, or the man who is alleged to have committed an offence, and ask them whether they would be willing to take the child to a doctor.
I contend that, if this is skilfully done and if the parents have nothing to worry about, they will want to take the child to a doctor. It seems to me that we shall upset an enormous number of good parents who have a finger pointed at them and then receive a court order to take their child to a doctor. Equally, I wonder how doctors feel about this from the point of view of personal relationships with their patients.
As my noble friend Lord Mottistone has pointed out, if a man or a woman will not take his or her child to a doctor either because he or she has committed an offence or because of a feeling of animosity towards the social worker, I contend that it is better at that stage to impose an emergency protection order, which must come from a court, as must a child assessment order. In the eyes of many people, the difference between an assessment order and an emergency protection order is not very great. They see them both as a court order and a great infringement of their liberties.
If, under an emergency protection order one had to remove the child, I might think very differently. However, a social worker can take out an emergency protection order and insist that a medical is carried out. If then the medical proves to be perfectly straightforward and shows that the child has not been abused, only one court order has been involved. I contend that it is going too far to have to place two court orders on a child when one would do.
430
I also feel that if a number of social workers have skills in interviewing and capacities for good personal relationships and if they see the children concerned—after all, let us admit that in a number of these cases social workers sometimes did not see the children—another court order is not necessary. I hope that the Committee will consider an alternative point of view.
The Lord Chancellor: This is an extremely important matter. I hope that, notwithstanding what I said at the outset of this debate, the Committee will be prepared to allow me to make a fairly detailed explanation. The matter is certainly one that I should not wish to try finally to resolve tonight. As my noble friends have demonstrated between them, there are two rather different points of view available on this matter. Differences exist between those who have great experience in this field. There are differences between the directors of social work on the one hand and the NSPCC on the other. Both those parties are very experienced in this field. It would be difficult for me to select between them, except on the basis of considerable reasons which I am now about to embark upon.
We have been reminded that the making available of such an order as is presently proposed by these amendments was one of the principal recommendations of the report on the death of Kimberly Carlile. It is perhaps worth noting that it is not the report's answer to the problem of the child who has not been seen at all—this would be handled by giving his social worker right of entry and inspection.
On medical examination, the report at pages 153 to 156 proposed a new and separate order to meet all the difficulties experienced with the place of safety order. Its prime virtue according to the report, would be that:
"it would partake of none of the coercive nature of a removal and detention of a child from the child's parents and home."
There should, as a result, be no question of family trauma. There would, in addition, according to the report:
"be none of the inaptness of the order that has emerged from misuse of the place of safety order in the past."
The case for a child assessment order made by the report is based to some extent—I would not put it higher than that—on perceived inadequacies in the place of safety order and its possible misuse. Our proposals for a new emergency protection order are a response to those very problems.
The report questioned the Government's claim in paragraph 47 of the White Paper that the concerns which prompted the proposal for a lesser order would be addressed in the new proposals. However, the full details of the emergency protection order now provided in the Bill were not available to the Kimberly Carlile inquiry panel. I must also say, although not at all critically, that some may consider that what the report called "bureaucratic magnetism,"—an interesting idea: that is, too great a readiness to opt for the lesser order in circumstances where the greater order should be used—could well prove much more of a problem than the report supposed, however clear the guidance on proper use

431
of the two orders. Lord Justice Butler-Sloss was concerned in the Cleveland inquiry about the risk of confusion. As my noble friend has pointed out, that concern is shared by the Association of Directors of Social Services in this country.
I shall try to show why we believe that the emergency protection order provisions can encompass the types of case about which my noble friend Lord Mottistone is concerned. There are, I think, three situations that we need to look at: first, where the child needs to be seen; secondly, where the child needs to be medically assessed; and, thirdly, where the child needs to be removed. The emergency protection order provides for all three. It authorises removal but does not require it. Under Clause 37(3) the applicant who is given parental responsibility for the child as the result of the order is required only to take such action in meeting that responsibility as is reasonably required to safeguard or promote the welfare of the child, having regard to the short duration of the order. If the applicant finds that it is not necessary to remove the child in order to safeguard or promote his welfare, he is in effect required by Clause 37(3) not to do so. The order remains in force, however, so that, if circumstances change and removal becomes necessary during the duration of the order, that is still authorised.
Moreover, Clause 37(7) imposes a new duty on the applicant, if it is safe to do so, to return the child who is under an emergency order to allow his care to be taken over by a person listed in subsection (8). So the order can be used, and appropriate action taken, in two of the situations to which I have just alluded—when it is sufficient for the child to be seen, and where the child needs to he removed.
Where the child needs to be medically examined—the third situation and the one which those who favour a child assessment order usually have most in mind—a solution is provided by Clause 37(4). I referred to that point on 6th December. If the local authority is unable to negotiate access to the child, and considers that as a result there is an emergency, it could apply for an emergency protection order and ask the court to give directions as to medical or psychiatric examination of the child. The court can also direct, under subsection (5), that there should be no such examination. We must remember that we are addressing those cases where there is serious concern about the child's welfare. One of the advantages of pursuing a medical examination under those provisions is that if a direction that the child be medically examined is obstructed the applicant can consider whether to use his power to remove the child immediately without having to apply for a separate order. Refusal to allow the child to be medically examined may in many circumstances be extremely significant.
It will also be possible for the court to decide not to make an emergency protection order at all, or to make one of very short duration, say 24 hours. The court may consider that the applicant has not exhausted opportunities to negotiate voluntary access to the child or that the parents should be given a very early opportunity to respond to the emergency
432
protection order application, and that the child will be safe in the meantime.
Alternatively, where there is no need to apply for an emergency protection order and there is no immediate risk of harm to the child, we have provided a new interim disposal in that an interim supervision order may be made under which direction may be made requiring medical examination. I believe that that addresses most closely some of the situations which have prompted a desire for this type of order.
The Cleveland Report suggested that, while a single order is needed, on occasion the justice might adjourn the application to notify the parents and allow them to have their say. Alas, that too fails to allow for unjustified optimism. The lesson of child abuse inquiries is that the child must be seen at once and that means that the social worker must be left the unenviable decision whether or not to activate the order and remove the child when the child is seen to have been damaged or access is refused.
Let me turn now to the amendments which seek to provide for a child assessment order in the Bill. The principal amendment addresses one of the major difficulties which having two similar orders presents. This is to produce for each order grounds which not only provide appropriately for the situation in which the order is to be used, but also are sufficiently distinct from each other to ensure that social workers and others will always be clear which one to apply for. One has to remember that social workers are operating in conditions of stress and often in conditions that require pretty urgent action. One does not want them to have to face up to the rather fine examination of distinctions which may not be matters that one can readily keep in one's head.
The principal conditions for the two orders envisaged by the amendment would certainly be different. For the emergency protection order there has to be reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to suffer significant harm if he is not removed. For the child assessment order there has to be reasonable cause to believe that the child concerned may be suffering harm (whether or not harm is significant), and that a request to produce the child for an examination has been refused. The phrase "may be suffering harm" is very wide and could easily cover an unlikely possibility of injury (such as a child going on an adventure holiday), and also very minor harm such as an occasional slap or unkindness; and in those circumstances the refusal of the parents to produce a child for a prompt examination may be understandable. If parents are thinking of taking a child on an adventure holiday, it might be very natural that they would not respond favourably to the suggestion that the child needs to be medically examined.
Do we really want the state to be able to intervene in family life on such wide grounds? The civil liberties implications would certainly have to be considered. The harm of which the child is at risk must surely be significant; but, of course, this immediately brings conflict with the emergency protection order grounds.
A further question is whether the application would be ex-parte or on notice? An ex-parte

433
procedure could only be justified if there was an emergency, and in this case there must be a real possibility that removal of the child will be required at once.
Subsection (1)(b) of the proposed grounds is not, I must suggest, very precise. What is meant by "prompt"; on whose request; is there to be no defence of reasonable excuse? And is it reasonable to require that the assessment, by which is perhaps meant merely production of the child, should take place within 24 hours, given that the unavoidable consequence of failure to comply would be an application for an emergency protection order? Would it then be possible for the applicant to provide for the leap from "harm" to "significant harm" between the two grounds? Should the child assessment order itself be challengeable in court? The scheme at present drafted would limit this to the emergency protection order. The draft clause is not intended to be definitive, I recognise, but these questions illustrate some of the difficulties in putting together an acceptable scheme.
Amendments Nos. 194C, 200A, 200B and 202ZA are essentially consequential amendments to provide for a child assessment order in the clauses on emergency protection orders, local authority investigations and powers to assist in the discovery of children who may be in need of emergency protection. They could be looked at in greater detail if the principal proposal were accepted. I say at this stage only that Amendment No. 194C does not, I think, quite work as at present drafted. I assume that its purpose is to estabish that failure to comply with a child assessment order itself gives reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to suffer significant harm if he is not removed. Clause 37(1) is not the place for this; it sets out the ground for the emergency protection order by reference to the actions listed at paragraphs (a) and (b).
As regards these other amendments, I accept that if a child assessment order is adopted it would be necessary to consider whether, and if so how, it would need linking with Clauses 40 and 41.
Amendment No. 202AZA is another approach to the child assessment order with broadly similar provisions to the first, except that applications would be made by individual social services workers or health visitors, and the child would have to be produced within three days. If anything, however, this is even wider in its potential scope. There is no requirement as to grounds on which the court has to be satisfied, but only that in bringing the application the applicant believes that a child's health, safety or welfare may be at risk. The amendment traces no link with the emergency protection order.
Amendment No. 196BA seeks to enable the court to give directions as to the developmental assessment of a child when making an emergency protection order in respect of that child. This would of course be capable of standing alone in relation to emergency protection orders.
We must be careful to distinguish between examination and assessment. While an examination may take place on a single occasion for a particular purpose, an assessment, or a developmental
434
assessment, is likely to involve a series of examinations, meetings or interviews over an unspecified or even indefinite period of time, and it may involve various professional persons. However it is defined, it will inevitably be a relatively lengthy consideration of a child's circumstances. As such I do not think that it would be appropriate for a court to be able to give directions concerning such an assessment when making an emergency protection order which at that stage can last for no more than eight days and will often be of shorter duration.
In Clause 37(4)(b) we have in mind one or more examinations which may reveal whether the child has suffered harm. There is a sense of immediacy about this. Such an examination should be sufficient for the purposes of the emergency protection of the child but it may also assist the local authority in deciding whether to seek an interim care order during which a fuller assessment may take place.
Turning back to the proposal that there should be a child assessment order, I said at Second Reading that while I felt that we have dealt with the underlying issue in the Bill it would be right to examine the matter in Committee. I have to say that the debate so far has not yet persuaded me that our original view was wrong and, in particular, that the difficult questions of separate grounds and avoiding the risk of confusion have been satisfactorily addressed. However, it would now be right, given the interest in this matter, for the Government to consider the matter further and this we shall do. I do not promise and I do not think that it would be right to promise, that the Government will be able to reach a final decision on their position by Report. However, I shall certainly be as forthcoming then as is possible. May I, on that basis, invite the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble and learned friend very much for spelling out so carefully the Government's views on my amendments. I am much encouraged that the Government will look with great care at this point. Perhaps in another place at a later stage the matter may reach fruition. It is very important.
It is unfortunate that the Association of Directors of Social Services has taken a firm line in one direction. However, we shall read with care what my noble and learned friend has said. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 31, line 44, after ("request") insert ("forthwith to disclose the whereabouts of the child and").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 195 is self-explanatory. It adds to the requirement to be included in an emergency protection order to produce a child a further requirement "forthwith to disclose the whereabouts of the child" so that police and social workers can retrieve a concealed child whose parents or others are unwilling or unable to produce him. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: There is a very similar provision on disclosure in Clause 41(1) which enables the court—where it appears that adequate information as to the child's whereabouts is not available to another person—to include a provision in the emergency protection order requiring that person to disclose any information that he may have if asked to do so by the applicant.
It could be argued that there would be value in having a requirement of this kind automatically provided for in an emergency protection order so that if the applicant found unexpectedly that he needed this authority to trace the child it would not be necessary to seek the additional provision available under Clause 41(1). I have some sympathy with this argument but two other points have to be considered. First, it is a good principle that powers requiring other people to do something should have to be justified to the court's satisfaction and not be available as a matter of course without evidence of need in a particular case. Secondly under Clause 41(1) the disclosure requirement will have to be specific to a particular person who would then be subject to the provisions on incrimination and admissibility in Clause 41(2). It is very doubtful that these provisions could apply to
"any person who is in a position to do so",
if I may refer to Clause 37(2).
I believe that clause 41(1) will cover these intentions perfectly well. The very existence of this provision will encourage the applicant to consider, when making the application, whether information about the child's whereabouts may be a problem and whether he should ask for the order to be added to. This point will also be in the court's mind.
Accordingly, I do not believe that it is necessary or indeed desirable to put this amendment into the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that that is so.
Lord Banks: I meant to say in the course of my introduction that it was a recommendation of the Cleveland Report, page 228, that something of this kind should be introduced into legislation. Clause 41(1) may perhaps answer what was suggested there. I shall examine that and also what the noble and learned Lord said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 32, line 16, at end insert ("and
(c) shall inform the child and his parents or those with parental responsibility, the direction of the court, or rights to variation and discharge of the order.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 196A, 196B, 202A and 202B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. An emergency protection order is a dramatic event in the life of any family and may be particularly confusing for the child or children concerned. Parents and children often complain that they have received no information as to the meaning of the current place of safety order. Good social work practice should dictate that the child and family are given as much information as is reasonable and possible.
However, that does not always happen. Information on the order will now be more important than ever as rules of court will specify such matters as the parent or the child being able to apply for the discharge of the order or variation of the order in respect of medical examination. This is too important a matter to be left to a circular or guidelines and should be a statutory duty. Hence the need for my Amendment No. 196. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, not for the first time is moving in the same direction as I was trying to move in relation to the Bill. The only reason that I preferred the wording I have used here—that where the court makes an emergency protection order notice of the order and the reasons for it shall be given to any person with parental responsibility—is that it roughly reproduces the equivalent provision in Section 28(3) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.
Whatever wording is used—if the noble and learned Lord will accept the spirit behind the amendment he will decide much more wisely than I could—the reason for it is that the notice of an emergency protection order is sufficiently important to be stated in the Bill rather than left to a Clause 43 permissive regulation made by the Minister concerned. Even then there is nothing, so far as I know, calling for notice of the reasons for the order to be given. That is an important point.
I hope that it is convenient, to avoid my rising again and the Committee being even more wearied by my voice, for me to speak also to Amendment No. 196B. There again the amendment reproduces fairly equivalent provisions to those in Clause 39(3). I make the point that it is just as appropriate to explain what is happening to the child when what I believe will now be known as an EPO order is made, as when a child is taken into police protection. Indeed, it was one of the reported concerns of the Cleveland inquiry that children as well as adults should be better informed. Having said that, I respectfully suggest that the wording that has been used in my amendment may or may not be suitable, but the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and I have the same aim in mind.
The Lord Chancellor: I believe that I can deal with this matter fairly briefly as the answer is the same for all these amendments. The rule-making power in Clause 43 is deliberately very far-reaching. It covers all the matters which have been raised by the amendments. In particular, I refer to Clause 43(2)(b), which covers the persons who are to be informed of the making of listed applications and orders. The rules of court could only cover notification of persons with parental responsibilituy for the child under the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has proposed, at least if one reads just that amendment.
The Government's intention is more flexible. I should not wish to commit us to particular rules; but rules may be needed to be extended to cover not only persons with parental responsibility but also, in appropriate cases, the person with whom the child was living before the order was made, an unmarried father who does not have parental responsibility and any person who had the benefit of a contact order

437
with respect to the child. All those persons have, subject to the court's directions, a presumption of reasonable contact with the child in their favour. It would seem right for them to be informed of the order being made. Similarly, Amendments Nos. 196, 196A and 196B would impose specific obligations to inform a limited range of people. I believe that rules of court could operate more generously regarding notification in appropriate cases.
I should also draw to noble Lords' attention Clause 43(2)(c) which provides for rules to cover notification and the manner in which, and the person by whom, it is to be given. Amendment No. 196B raises the important issue of informing the child of the nature of the order. That can be covered by rules about the manner in which the intimation is to be given.
I suggest to the Committee that we have already taken ample power to cover the matters raised in these amendments. I hope that rules of court may provide a comprehensive but simple and consistent code regarding notification. I hope that Members of the Committee consider that to be an appropriate way of dealing with the matters.
Lord Mishcon: At this time of night I find myself in a miserable and somewhat fatigued state. That is because, with all the courtesy and authority that goes behind what the noble and learned Lord says, one is constantly left with a feeling of, "What am I as a humble legislator?".
The Bill is going through this House with the blessing of the House. I am sorry if I sound like a gramophone record, but one is constantly told that this is the kind of issue that the rules of court may well deal with. If the Bill leaves this House in its present form, permission is given, although there is nothing mandatory, that rules of court may be made. When they are made they may include provisions which deal with notices of this kind.
I do not wish to make the point in regard to matters which are not of grave importance, but one is dealing with an emergency protection order which has already been described as being a traumatic experience for the household. Indeed it is. It has been described as something which, for the protection of the child, invades everything that we know about personal liberty, the rights of a subject, family unity and everything else.
I know that the noble and learned Lord shows good will; but, when we try to put important issues in relation to emergency protection orders in the statute he says with complete grace that there is no need to do so. He says that they can be dealt with much better by rules of court. We have the responsibility for passing the Bill through this House. We do not have the rules of court. We do not know whether they will be made in conformity with what the Committee will require.
With respect, I ask the noble and learned Lord this question. Can he give the Committee an undertaking that the rules of court will provide for what we regard as essential? Presumably not. It is the notice and the reasons for the emergency protection order being made.
438
If the noble and learned Lord can now rise and say, "Don't worry, you need not put the amendments down because I undertake that the rules of the court will make this very provision", I shall sit down knowing the source of the undertaking and respecting it. I shall feel that as a humble legislator I have done my job and have obtained an undertaking. Without that specific undertaking, and with a sense of responsibility, how can we leave such issues? They have been pointed at by the Cleveland Report and warned of by others. Articles have been written about the emergency protection order and the rights of the child and the family, but nevertheless the need to protect the child. I ask the noble and learned Lord to do one of two things. Either he must say that these amendments meet with the favour of the Government—and obviously we can leave the wording of them until a later stage—or he must give a firm undertaking that in the spirit of these amendments and with the principle being honoured, the rules of court to be made will so provide. Unless I receive an undertaking or the acceptance of the principle of the amendments, then I believe that the noble and learned Lord will understand how miserably unhappy, even if accompanied by fatigue, I feel at this hour.
10.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I hate the idea of the noble Lord being miserable. I cannot entirely prevent him from being fatigued but I shall do my best to do so. In my mind there is no question but that the matters covered in these amendments are of considerable importance, as he says. I believe I can undertake that all these matters will be subject to consideration for the rules and I would expect the rules, not necessarily in these terms, to make suitable provision to cover all these matters. That is the situation. Obviously these rules have to be consulted upon and the precise circumstances of them have to be looked at. However, my understanding is that the intention is to cover all those matters in a codified way in the rules.
Lord Mishcon: I know that the noble and learned Lord will not think me in the slightest degree discourteous. I know that he will understand that I speak because of the seriousness of the emergency protection orders, which I know he also regards seriously. I know that he will accept that that is the spirit in which I address the Committee.
I noted the words to which the noble and learned Lord gave vent. He said that undoubtedly there will be consideration and that he would expect that the rules will so provide. I am now going even further. I ask the noble and learned Lord to assure the Committee that before the Bill leaves this Chamber—so that we have an opportunity to do something about it, even at Third Reading—consideration will already have been given and the expectation will already have been realised so that we can definitely know, with our sense of responsibility, that the rules of court will so provide in regard to these emergency orders.
I am not asking for the exact wording but that the principle should be conceded. I ask that the notice and reasons will be given and that those with parental responsibility will be included in that notice, as will the child. If the noble and learned Lord will say that,

439
I shall sit down, However, I should like him to assure the Committee that we shall know where we stand before the Bill leaves this Chamber. Then we shall have an opportunity to put those matters into the Bill if this consideration does not end the way he wants it to and I want it to, and also the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, wants it to, and the expectation has been realised that those matters are going into the regulations.
If he cannot do that, then at least some of us will feel that we have not realised the responsibility which we undoubtedly carry as legislators on this important Bill. The Bill involves the children of our country and the insertion into the Bill of the provisions of the emergency protection order. I invite him at least—this is as far as I can go—to give an assurance that we shall know where we stand before Third Reading on the consideration of the rules and whether the rules will so provide so that we have a last chance to table amendments for inclusion in the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: I am prepared to undertake to give a statement of the position when we reach that stage. If it is possible to be absolutely conclusive about the matter then, well and good. I shall certainly undertake to, so to speak, report the matter further to the noble Lord in time for him to put down an amendment before Third Reading if he so wishes.
Lord Mishcon: I am grateful. For my part I am prepared to withdraw my amendments on that basis. It is for the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, to make his own decision.
Lord Mottistone: I enjoyed that exchange. My sympathies are with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and also with my noble and learned friend for withstanding that great battery and onslaught at this time of night.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is right in one respect; and I used to feel this even more strongly when I sat on the Benches opposite. It is this awful business when the government of the day replies (the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, will remember this because he was in government at the time), "Yes, it will all go into regulations." We were maddened by that reaction. Back-Bench Members are still maddened by that, whichever side of the Chamber they sit on.
What happens when that occurs—I hope that the Chief Whip will read Hansard; I do not suppose he ever does, but he might—is that we put down more amendments at the next stage of the Bill. then everybody gets furious because it takes much longer to get the Bill through. If we could have more definitive assistance, that would make a difference. This rests not with specific Ministers but with the whole system, which does not make proper allowance for the fact that Parliament is here to legislate. It is not here to be put off by excuses.
However, this issue is not one of substantial importance which needs to be fought to a bitter end at this time of night and therefore I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 196A, 196B and 196BA not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 196C:
Page 32, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) A direction under subsection (4)(b) shall not affect any legal right the child has to refuse consent to the medical examination.").
The noble Lord said: The noble and learned Lord will remember that this was the amendment to which my noble friend Lady David referred before she left the Chamber. The noble and learned Lord said that in regard to the refusal of consent by the child this matter would be given consideration. On that basis my noble friend gave notice that she would not be pressing the amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: Although the earlier amendment and this amendment both deal with the medical examination, this amendment deals with it in the context of the emergency protection order, where the child's consent may be less important. One can imagine a situation where an abused child under a parent's influence would refuse. Therefore, the considerations are different but I undertake to consider both amendments without necessarily the same result.
Lord Mishcon: That is understood. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment on that basis.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 196D not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 33, line 11, leave out ("authority") and insert ("responsibility").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McGregor of Durris Lord McGregor of Durris moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 33, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall be taken to limit the power of the High Court to review any decision taken under this Part.").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Banks asked me to move this amendment. Its purpose is simply to preserve the possibility of judicial review whether a protection order is obtained or refused. It is recognised that this will be used rarely in practice but, nevertheless, it is an important, limited safeguard which was commented upon and recommended in the report of the Kimberly Carlile case. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The amendment is not necessary for the purpose indicated because there is nothing in this part to oust the jurisdiction of the court on judicial review. As the noble Lord knows, one needs clear words to oust the jurisdiction of the court on judicial review. The result is achieved by the wording as we have it at the moment.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McGregor of Durris Lord McGregor of Durris moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 33, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of this Part of this Act "the court" means the High Court or County Court and application shall be made to a judge.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 199ZA. I shall he brief although this is an important and significant issue of the order of those earlier discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
It is common ground that the removal of a child from home and parents, for whatever reason, is one of the most potentially destructive orders upon both child and parents that can be made. It should be made by a judge and not by lay magistrates. Under the Bill, it will be possible to make an emergency protection order in exactly the same way as it is now possible to make a place of safety order. An applicant may go to a lay magistrate. The intention of the present procedure is that such an application should be made to the home of a lay magistrate when the court is not sitting. The lay magistrate will then make an order. lithe procedure is properly followed (which frequently it is not) the order should be sent forthwith to the clerk of the juvenile court. The present procedure works very badly. The Cleveland Report made a special investigation of this procedure. It commented in paragraph 10.9 on page 173 that of the orders examined in the six month period,
"174 were heard by a single magistrate at home, during the hours of court sittings".
The amendment will have two vitally important effects. First, it will reflect the gravity of the order in that it should not be made by a lay magistrate but only by a judge. Secondly, it will ensure that a proper judicial procedure is followed before a child is removed even temporarily from his parents. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I have already explained in some detail the general policy that we have in mind and the possibility of making regulations which would make appropriate to certain cases particular procedures. I should like to mention one point in connection with the amendments. The registrar of the county court often deals adequately with family matters. It might well be the case that he would be an officer to be considered as one to make such orders. The matter is one on which we would desire to have flexibility and also desire to have the possibility of change, without the necessity for primary legislation, to take account of improvements in procedure and experience of procedure. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I do not wish to press the amendment, the noble and learned Lord having indicated—I hope I understood his indication correctly—that he has it in mind to make regulations which might in the future lead to a procedure different from that which is followed at the moment which in its procedural aspects is well known to be defective. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 199ZA not moved.]
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 199A:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause:
"Attendance at court in connection with emergency protection orders.
—(1) Where the court is satisfied that there are grounds for making an emergency protection order and there is reasonable
442
cause to believe that one or more members of the child's household may he prepared to give undertakings to the court for the protection of the child, such as vacating the home or severing contact with the child, the court may adjourn the hearing in order that the following persons shall attend court as soon as is reasonably practicable—

(a) the child

(b) a parent of his

(c) any person who is not a parent but who has parental responsibility for him

(d) any person with whom he was living immediately before the application.

(2) In such circumstances the court shall not make an emergency protection order if, on receipt of such undertakings, it is satisfied that a child would be safe.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment would empower all courts who might hear an application for an emergency protection order to consider an undertaking as an alternative to making an order. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor knows, undertakings are much used in other forms of litigation. To make them available in Section 37 proceedings would represent a further step in making care and related proceedings more civil than criminal in nature.
Provision for undertakings will also emphasise the concerns expressed by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss to the effect that removing the abuser should, wherever possible, be considered as an alternative to removing the abused child from the family. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: This raises an important question, and the situation is one which we are very much still considering. I could talk about it at some length. It may be that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to leave this with us for further consideration. It is an area in which we are certainly thinking of making proposals of our own at as early a time as we can manage.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: In the light of that observation and undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 199AB not moved.]
Clause 38 [Duration of emergency protection orders and other supplemental provisions]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 199B:
Page 34, line 12, leave out ("Rules of Court may make provision as to the circumstances in which").
The noble Lord said: I can deal with this shortly. The deletion of these words from subsection (8), as suggested by the amendment, has only one intention. It is to remove the risk that the ability to apply for an emergency protection order to be discharged may be seriously curtailed by rules of court.
If the intention is to restrict the circumstances in which such an application could be made this should be done in all frankness. It should appear clearly on the face of the Bill. If, however, the introductory words of this subsection were intended to provide that rules of court prescribe the procedure by which an application for discharge shall be made. then that is what the subsection should say. My noble and learned friend reminds me that I am talking to Amendment No. 199C as well. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The idea of this provision which is, as it were, under attack is to allow the rules

443
of court to provide the circumstances in which application may be made for discharge. The position is that it may not be wise to give an unfettered right of application. The power to make rules has been sought to permit a degree of flexibility.
The Government have already said that where an original emergency order was made on an ex parte basis (when the parents would not be present) the right to apply for discharge would be introduced. This is certainly one situation which will be covered by rules of court. However, where for example a parent was able to make full representations at the hearing which made the original emergency order, I am not convinced that a right to apply for a discharge after, say, 72 hours, is right, because, as the noble Lord knows, we propose that the emergency order might have a continuing effect, which is a valuable aspect of it.
So it is really to deal with these circumstances that this provision is made, and the variety of circumstances and the need to consult in detail about these particular matters make it appropriate to have rules. The idea is that there should be an ultimate right to apply for discharge, but maybe not every moment of every day.
Lord Mishcon: I hope that there will be no barrage, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, described a previous respectful submission of mine to the Committee. I also hope that, on a matter of this kind too, the noble and learned Lord can give us in time for us to move an amendment if we want to before the end of the proceedings on the Bill, some indication as to what are likely to be the precise rules in regard to applying for discharge of the order. It is a most important matter and I know that he will do his best to do it, and that, if he cannot, he will give us notice so that we can do something about it by amendment. If the noble and learned Lord would care to indicate that that would be his hope, I ask for no more and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment—
The Lord Chancellor: I will do my best to give an indication in time before the end of the proceedings here.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 199C to 199F not moved.]
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Removal and accommodation of children by police in cases of emergency]:
[Amendment No. 199G not moved.]
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 199H:
Page 35, line 7. at end insert—
("( ) ascertain where possible the child's wishes and feelings and give these due consideration having regard to his age and understanding;").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment covers the not uncommon circumstances where older children are picked up by the police because the police are concerned for their welfare although there is no evidence of a crime having been committed. Similar existing police place of safety orders are used, for example, if young people are found on the streets
444
late at night or in areas of prostitution or appear to be under the influence of drink, drugs or solvent abuse.
At present, the police are under standing orders but not a legal duty to return young people under 18 to their parents, but this may not always be appropriate. Children may have run away because of sexual or physical abuse or may face abuse on their return. In such cases, the police should refer the matter to the local authority. Subsection (7) provides for such a referral, but we must be sure that the police first investigate the case fully. Consulting the children themselves should be an obvious part of investigation but cannot be taken for granted, and we submit that the duty should be written into the Bill, as it has indeed been for courts and local authorities under Clauses 2 and 18. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am happy to consider this amendment further. We must watch, of course, that in what could well be tense situations we do not place on the child burdens of the kind that concerned us when considering similar amendments in respect of other parts of the Bill. We shall also need to be sure that it would not undermine any other obligations the police may have under this clause; in particular, the requirement to safeguard the child's welfare. So it is a delicate situation but we will certainly consider it further.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: In the light of that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 35, line 23, leave out from ("(a)") to ("and") and insert—
("the child's parents;
(b) every person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a straightforward amendment to bring Clause 39(4) into line with other provisions in the Bill: for example, Clauses 18(4), 51(2) and 58(5). The intention, by separating parents from other persons with parental responsibility, is to ensure that if there is an unmarried father who has not acquired parental responsibility under Clause 4 he is also notified of the child's having been taken into police protection if this is reasonably practicable. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Local authority's duty to investigate]:
[Amendments Nos. 200A, 200B and 201 not moved.]
Clause 40 agreed to.
Lord McGregor of Durris Lord McGregor of Durris moved Amendment No. 202:
After Clause 40, insert the following new clause:
("Care of "runaway" children.
.—(1) An organisation providing premises and services for the care of children or young persons under the age of 17 or who are in the care of the local authority, who are missing from their usual place of residence without permission ("runaways"), shall register those premises and services with the department of Health and Social Services Inspectorate.
(2) The organisation and the Inspectorate shall agree and define certain specific circumstances under which the organisation shall operate those premises and services.

445
(3) Registration in accordance with subsections (1) and (2) above shall exempt those premises and services, and the organisation solely in respect of those premises and services, from any offence of knowingly and without reasonable excuse or lawful authority

(a) taking the child; or

(b) detaining or harbouring the child; or

(c) assisting, inducing or inciting the child to run away.

(4) Registration in accordance with subsections (1) and (2) above shall allow the organisation to withhold the address of the premises where the runaway is accommodated from his parents and the responsible local authority until investigations are completed into why the young person has run away.
(5) when a young person is admitted to the registered premises staff will, as soon as is reasonably practicable, inform the police that the young person has been admitted and provide such information as will enable the police to notify the parents or responsible local authority that the young person has been found and is being accommodated.
(6) Rules of court may make provision as to the circumstances in which any of the following may apply to the court for such an amendment to be terminated—

(a) the child;

(b) a parent of his;

(c) any person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him;

(d) any person with whom he was living immediately before his admission to the registered premises.

(7) No application under subsection (6) shall be heard by the court before the expiry of the period of 72 hours beginning with the admission of the young person to the registered premises.
(8) If the young person remains in the registered premises for a period exceeding eight days, any of the parties specified in subsection (6) may apply to the court for a determination that the young person he returned to his parents or the responsible local authority.").
The noble Lord said: I shall be mercifully brief. The object of this amendment is to provide a basis in law for those organisations which provide premises and temporary accommodation and services for young people who run away from home or from local authority care. The facilities are available to any one run away for a short period of time only, while the situation is investigated and alternative arrangements made.
The White Paper stated:
"There are a number of agencies which carry out useful tasks in looking after children who have run away for short periods while alternative arrangements can be made. It is proposed that these organisations should be specified and then exempted from liability from offences in defined circumstances".
There is no clear indication under the Bill of the Government's intention to implement this proposal; and the amendment is designed to that end. I imagine I shall be readily forgiven if I refrain from going through the subsections one by one. I wish only to state the general intention. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I sympathise with the principle behind this amendment and I undertake to table an amendment at a later stage to give effect to the White Paper proposal by conferring power on the Secretary of State by regulations to exempt specified organisations and their officers from liabilitiy as regards the harbouring of children in specified premises in specified circumstances. The powers of exemption would also be extended to liability under Section 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 for acts which amount to harbouring. I hope that in the light of that undertaking the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this rather extensive amendment.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the extensive amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 202AZA;
After Clause 40, insert the following new clause:
("Court applications by social workers and others.
.—(1) A social worker or health visitor who believes that a child's health, safety or welfare may be at risk may apply to a court for an order requiring the child's parent or other person with parental responsibility for the child, to produce the child for medical examination at a specified child health clinic, medical centre or hospital within three days; and such an order may specify the nature of the examination.
(2)"social worker" includes a qualified local authority or NSPCC social worker;
"health visitor" includes a qualified health visitor or general practitioner;
"medical examination" includes developmental assessment and may be extended to further examinations after the inital one.
(3) A parent or person with parental responsibility who is the subject of an order under this section may appeal against the order to the court which made the order and such appeal may concern the generality of the order or any specific requirement contained in it.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I venture to think that the terms in which the amendment is set out speak for themselves and I think it suffices for me, in view of the fact that the amendment is self-explanatory, simply to move it formally. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: This amendment was grouped with the amendment which I moved—namely, Amendment No. 194C. I must point out that no noble Lord from the other side of the Committee rose to speak to it, although my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made a few remarks about it and its principal amendment, Amendment No. 199AB.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Perhaps we on this side of the Committee may be excused for occasionally nodding. But, in any event, we accept what has already been said about the matter. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Clause 41 [Powers to assist in discovery of children who may be in need of emergency protection]:
[Amendment No. 202ZA not moved.]
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Rules and regulations]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 202A:
Page 39, line 19, leave out ("persons who are to he notified of") and insert ("means by which").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken about the principle behind this amendment and therefore I do not think that I need weary Members of the Committee by repeating what I said. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 202B not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 39, line 23, at end insert ("and").
The noble and learned Lord said: With this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 204. These amendments merely remove an unnecessary provision from Clause 43. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 39, line 25, leave out from ("given") to end of line 28.
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I think that it may be appropriate for the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who is dealing with Amendment No. 205, to say now what he has to say in relation to that amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I now call Amendment No. 204A.
Lord Mishcon: I apologise for the fact that my observation was meant to apply to Amendments Nos. 204A and 204B. It is in those circumstances that I do not propose to move the amendments tabled in my name, but to leave the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, to deal with Amendment No. 205.
[Amendments Nos. 204A and 204B not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 39, line 44, at end insert—
("(5) Regulations made under subsection (3) shall not apply where the application for an emergency protection order was made by an authorised person within the meaning of section 26(8) of this Act.
The noble Lord said: The clause obviously refers to the transfer of responsibilities between local authorities. However, the NSPCC, or other authorised persons, could find a local authority assuming parental responsibility for a child even where the society was the original applicant for the order. Children may be very vulnerable and distressed about events which have led to an order being made or by removal from the family home. Consistency of approach and a trusting relationship between the child and the social worker is all important to the child at such times. It would be most difficult for the child, or other family members, when they have established a relationship with one social worker to find that they have to start all over again with another social worker. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: As I understand this amendment, it could exempt from transfer regulations those emergency protection orders which had been applied for by a person authorised to bring proceedings for care and supervision. Of course here we are currently talking about the NSPCC. I can see the logic behind the amendment. A person who is authorised to bring proceedings under Clause 26 is in a special position. Not only is he able to act under Clause 26; he is also empowered to apply for an extension to an emergency order. In other words, his powers are as extensive as a local authority's when it comes to making applications.
However, I should not want to preclude regulations from dealing with cases initiated by the NSPCC, which would be the effect of the amendment. It may be, for example, that a local authority takes over a case shortly after the emergency order has been obtained. Should the NSPCC then remain the person with parental responsibility and have all the other duties which come with the emergency order? I think not. The same reasons which led us to put subsections 4(3) and 4(4) into the Bill are applicable there too. So I think it is wise to have this provision. I hope the noble Lord will feel able in that circumstance to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: Once again, I am not at all sure whether I agree with that. However, my noble and learned friend is so persuasive and it is so late at night that I cannot possibly pursue it now and I reserve the right to return at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 44 to 49 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eight minutes before eleven o'clock.

  PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS: COSTS
  PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS: COSTS
  PRISONERS IN DORMITORY ACCOMMODATION
  PRISONERS IN DORMITORY ACCOMMODATION
  TIDAL BARRAGES: EFFICIENCY COMPARISON
  TIDAL BARRAGES: EFFICIENCY COMPARISON
  HIV INFECTION STATISTICS
  HIV INFECTION STATISTICS
  SALMONELLA: DEATHS
  SALMONELLA: DEATHS