Sitting of 26 July 1989

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

    BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered tomorrow.

    CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered tomorrow.

    HAYLE HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order)

      QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
      To be considered tomorrow.

    CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Homelessness
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to deal with homelessness.
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to increase the supply of accommodation for single homeless people in London.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Patten): I am reviewing the homelessness legislation and hope to announce conclusions soon.
    Mr. Martlew: Does the Minister find anything obscene about the contradiction between homelessness doubling in the past two years and the squalid episode of Cabinet Ministers trying to decide which country mansion they should have? I understand that the Leader of the House is satisfied with his home, if not with his job. Will the Minister compare that with the plight of young homeless people that we see day after day in London? Many of them have come from constituencies in the north and in Scotland and Wales. They have taken the Government's advice to come to London for jobs, but they find no hope, no jobs and no future. Now that the Housing Act 1988 has
    1006
    failed, will the Minister take as much interest in the problems of the homeless as the Prime Minister does in the housing problems of her Cabinet?
    Mr. Patten: Perhaps I could deal with the serious part of that speech. In our review of homelessness legislation we are looking in particular at three matters. We are looking, first, at scope for greater consistency between authorities, secondly, at the need for improved management, and thirdly, at the need to achieve better use of existing stock by reducing the number of empty properties and cutting relet times. Some housing authorities have improved their performance on those scores, but we want to see all doing as well as the best.
    Sir George Young: In the review to which my right hon. Friend has referred, will he ensure that the potential of the tenants' incentive scheme is fully explored? Does he recognise that the quickest and most cost-effective way of tackling homelessness, especially in London, is to use that scheme to persuade existing council tenants to move out, particularly if they have retired and no longer wish to live in the city?
    Mr. Patten: That is one of a number of initiatives that we need to examine carefully. I know how much my hon. Friend knows about this issue and I shall, of course, want to consult people such as my hon. Friend before reaching any conclusions.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise because in the excitement I forgot to call Mr. Harry Cohen.
    Mr. Cohen: This week several Ministers are moving on, but the single homeless have a more serious problem. Does the Minister recognise that there are more than 50,000 homeless single teenagers in London alone and that the figure is increasing rapidly? The London boroughs' working party on the single homeless has said that there is a shortfall of at least 5,500 places per year, resulting in the hostels silting up with people who want more permanent accommodation. The working party describes it as an acute problem. Will the Minister provide resources and free the local authorities and housing associations to help the single homeless?
    Mr. Patten: I refer the hon. Gentleman to our hostels initiative, which has helped to deal with the problems of young people without accommodation. We have provided about 20,000 places under that initiative, and are increasing our grants to voluntary bodies. It is also important to take into account the £74 million that we have provided for the authorities with the most acute problems to get empty property back into use for the homeless. That initiative was rightly welcomed by the Select Committee on the Environment.
    Mr. Heddle: Does not homelessness have its foundations in rootlessness? Does my right hon. Friend agree that families, and particularly parents, have a real part to play in this? Will he confirm that the Housing Corporation and the voluntary housing movement also have a real part to play and that the corporation has had an extra £40 million this year and by 1991–92 will provide a further 24,000 homes for those in genuine housing need?
    Mr. Patten: There are social reasons for at least part of the homelessness problem, and my hon. Friend was right

    1007
    to draw attention to them. He was also right to point to the importance of the Housing Corporation and housing associations. This year, a quarter of the Housing Corporation's increasing programme for rent is going to schemes designed to help the homeless.
    Dr. Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State investigate Westminster city council's so-called "building stable communities" policy? Is he aware that the council's housing department has described the consequences of selling flats in eight key wards in the City of Westminster as resulting in the council being unable to meet its statutory obligations under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that even Conservative councillors such as councillor Patricia Curwen describe the policy as gerrymandering? Is he also aware that Queen's Counsel has given an opinion, on the record, that the policy has an "utterly unlawful purpose"? How much longer can Ministers keep silent in the face of overwhelming evidence of abuse of power right under their noses, in the heart of the capital city? Is it because they want to criticise local government only when it is Labour controlled, but turn a blind eye when councils are Tory controlled?
    Mr. Patten: I can give the hon. Gentleman a simple and straightforward answer. The points that he has raised and the allegations that he has made are matters for the council's auditors.

    Chlorofluorocarbons
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the reduction of chlorofluorocarbons use which will be achieved in the United Kingdom by the end of the year.
    The Minister for Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): I expect that by the end of this year the consumption of chlorofluorocarbons in this country will have been cut by at least 50 per cent. This is required by the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, but only by 1999. We will therefore be 10 years ahead of our international commitments in this area.
    Mr. Hind: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his well-deserved promotion, and we welcome him as our green Minister. His answer will be welcomed throughout the country, but he will be aware of the concern of the public generally about the need to accelerate the process of dealing with CFCs. What does he intend to do about that, and how will he deal with the little-known problem of halons?
    Mr. Trippier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his compliment. On the substantive point, we should like to move faster. The United Kingdom and the whole of the European Community are calling for cuts in CFCs of at least 85 per cent. as soon as possible, with the elimination of CFCs by the end of the century. Timing has to take account of the speed with which industry can move away from CFCs. Halons must also be phased out eventually, but as yet there are no acceptable substitutes. In the meantime, the emphasis should be on CFCs, although it is important to keep halons under careful scrutiny, particularly in the light of the welcome steps by the fire prevention industry to curb unnecessary and wasteful use of these substances.
    Ms. Walley: Does the Minister agree that although there has been some progress, it has not been as a direct result of Government action? Will he agree that there must now be Government intervention to deal with the rest of the CFCs, and that a reduction of 90 per cent. in 12 to 18 months would be a realistic objective? Is he aware that the Heating and Ventilating Contractors Association is concerned about the general level of uptake of refrigeration in recycling services, and will he give the House some idea of what provision there will be in the green Bill to deal with that? Finally, what advice has the Minister to offer the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who will have to make a big contribution to ensuring that industry has Government support to deal with this great problem?
    Mr. Trippier: It was less than generous of the hon. Lady to suggest that the Government had not taken a number of initiatives in this area. It was British scientists with the British Antarctic survey, sponsored by the Government, who first obtained conclusive evidence of the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere. In 1985, the Government were the first to sign the Vienna convention for the protection of the ozone layer, which was then ratified in 1987. It was this Government's initiative to host the saving of the ozone layer conference in London in March, which was so successful. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are determined that the United Kingdom Government should remain in the lead on these initiatives—a fact which is recognised in the international community, even if it is not acknowledged by the small-minded and ungrateful Labour party.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Will my hon. Friend join me in praising the chemical industry for finding alternative propellants to CFCs and will he consider legislating in favour of those CFC replacements for aerosols and refrigerators?
    Mr. Trippier: I cannot respond as positively as my hon. Friend would like in relation to legislation, but I am happy to take this opportunity to praise British industry for the way in which it has responded to the initiatives taken by the Government and within Europe. The British Aerosol Manufacturers Association has promised that at least 90 per cent. of aerosols will be CFC-free by the end of this year. The polyurethane foam manufacturers expect a 60 per cent. cut in CFC use by the end of 1993. Extruded polystyrene used as food packaging and in building installation should be free of CFCs by the end of the year. That is a good record on which we should compliment British industry and encourage it to do even more.

    Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has on the relative sources of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere in the United Kingdom.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Statistics on carbon dioxide emissions for the years 1977 to 1987 from domestic, industrial, transport and other sources were published in the Department's digest of environmental protection and water statistics, no. 11, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Wallace: I thank the hon. Lady for that helpful reply. It is clear that a substantial proportion of these emissions—up to 16 per cent.—come from road traffic use. Given the Government's projections of increased road traffic, there will be an increase in carbon dioxide emissions from cars until the year 2005. The Minister's answer showed that the causes include energy, transport, industrial and domestic sources, all of which are the responsibilities of different Ministries. What powers are available to her Department to co-ordinate all those sources and to ensure that there is one co-ordinated policy to deal with carbon dioxide emissions? Does she agree that the problem should not be tackled by being dispersed among several Ministries?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Having heard the hon. Gentleman's question, I hope that he will pay a warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for her seminar at Downing street on climatic change, which was precisely an attempt to draw together the various Government Departments concerned with carbon dioxide emissions. Fifty-seven per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions come from power stations, 14 per cent. from domestic properties and 16 per cent. from road transport.
    Mr. Squire: As my hon. Friend mentioned the recent conference, can she confirm that the advice from the Harwell scientists to that conference is that 50 per cent. of the solution to our problems will come from energy efficiency, and some 15 per cent. from nuclear power? Is she satisfied that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is fully prepared to go along with the outcome and the means of dealing with the problem, rather than merely raising it?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I fully endorse what my hon. Friend has said. Energy efficiency has an important part to play, as do land use and the economic pricing of fuel. It is clear that there is a role for nuclear energy—which produces neither acid rain nor carbon dioxide, leading to the greenhouse effect.
    Mr. Morley: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Forestry Commission and the Countryside Commission on their initiative in urban fringe forestry? Is she aware that the pilot schemes are substantially limited by the amount of financial resources available? Does she agree that the extension of those forests will do a great deal to absorb carbon dioxide, improving our environment and providing recreation facilities? Will she give the House an assurance that more resources will be made available to extend that very worthy project?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I congratulate the Forestry Commission and the Countryside Commission on that important initiative. More than that, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on his initiative in tackling the problem of the rain forests and forestry on an international basis. Although forestry in Britain may have a part to play, deforestation in the Third world is a far more significant factor in climate change.

    Bathing Water
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to require water authorities to make public their long-term plans to improve the quality of bathing waters at coastal resorts; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): The Department is in discussion with the water authorities about the accelerated programmes of improvement that they have drawn up to bring bathing waters up to European Community standards by the mid-1990s. They will be made public in due course.
    Mr. Taylor: While bathing waters at Southend on sea have been vastly improved by the installation of an extended sewage pipe which, happily, has transferred our problem to other constituencies, is my hon. and learned Friend aware that we do not have the slightest idea about the long-term plans of the Anglian water authority, despite the endeavours of energetic Members of Parliament to establish what they are? As the water authorities are wholly non-elected bodies, answerable to no one but the Secretary of State, would it not be appropriate to require the water authorities to tell the people what their long-term plans are, as it is the people who are paying for them?
    Mr. Howard: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's assessment of the effect of long sea outfalls, which were recognised by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution as the most effective way of dealing with sewage. However, I agree that more information needs to be made public about the long-term plans of the water authorities. That information will be made public shortly.
    Mr. John P. Smith: Does the Minister recognise that something must be done about the indiscriminate discharge of raw sewage into the sea, and in particular into the Bristol channel? Not only is the Welsh water authority failing to attain the standards that should be expected in this day and age, but the quality of water is declining. In my constituency, on Fontygary beach, the voluntary coast guards—the courageous men and women who safeguard our beaches—are advised not to go into the water except in emergencies because of the level of pollution, and I had the appalling experience of seeing those men and women coming out of the water covered in human excrement. That is not acceptable in this day and age.
    Mr. Howard: A great deal is being done to improve present conditions. The water authorities are spending £100 million per year on improving the quality of our bathing waters. I have asked them to accelerate their programme of improvement, and I expect to make their plans public shortly.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that a long outfall policy is analagous to the tall chimney policy which led us into such great difficulty with air emissions, based on the principle of "dilute and disperse" which is now somewhat discredited?
    Mr. Howard: I have great respect for my hon. Friend's views on the matter, but I do not think that his analogy is apt. All the available evidence suggests that long sea outfalls are an effective way of dealing with sewage, and

    1011
    that the action of the sun and the sea is a natural reproduction of the artificial method of treatment employed in sewage treatment works.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Now that there is a new boss at the Department of the Environment I expected that the Government might have started to tell the truth about the environment and our bathing beaches. Does the Minister accept that the 300 beaches designated as bathing beaches is a gross underestimate and that the Royal Commission on environmental pollution identified 600 bathing beaches? In any event only 30 per cent. of the 300 designated conform to EC standards. It is not surprising that all the beaches on the north-west coast are polluted, whether designated or not. It is not surprising that Albert and Mrs. Ramsbottom took their chance with the lions because if they had gone into the sea neither of them would have come out alive. When will the Government prepare plans and commit the necessary expenditure to stop raw sewage going into the sea, including through long sea outfalls, and when will they stop dumping sewage sludge in the sea?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. The number of designated bathing waters is not 300, but 403, and the proportion complying with the EC directive is 67 per cent. The hon. Gentleman's complaints are paricularly rich coming from a party which when in government failed to designate any bathing waters at all in this country four years after the directive came into force.
    Mr. Paice: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us a bit more about bathing beaches on the other side of the Channel? Is it not true that many European bathing beaches fail to meet the EC directive? Surely it is more important for the Community to consider the problem throughout Europe rather than concentrating on the state of British beaches.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. France is one of five countries in respect of which the Commission has made complaints about the standard of bathing waters. In this, as in so many other respects, our record compares extremely well with the rest of Europe.

    Inner Area Programme
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to increase funding resources available for the inner area programme above the inflation rate.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. David Hunt): Future resource allocations for local authorities preparing an inner area programme will depend on the outcome of the public expenditure discussions now under way.
    Mr. Pike: I congratulate the Minister on his new post. Will he confirm that dealing with areas of urban deprivation is still a Government priority and that adequate resources will be available to deal with that problem? Will he also categorically state that there are no plans to remove from the inner area programme any area currently receiving help from that programme?
    Mr. David Hunt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first two propositions. With regard to the cities involved in the inner area programme, I have received a number of
    1012
    representations from right hon. and hon. Members for further inclusions in the programme. I can therefore give no categorical assurance about future numbers involved. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Burnley, where the IAP strategy is clearly presented and soundly based. That is why so much increased funding has been made available to Burnley.
    Mr. O'Brien: It is a fact beyond dispute that since the "Action for Cities" statement was made little has been achieved by the Government. Even the £34 million allocated for city grant has proved abysmal and is less than a quarter of that requested to meet demand. Will the new Minister pursue the argument in favour of the inner area programme and urban regeneration and seek to convince his colleagues the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister that it is important that resources should be made available to meet the demand for inner city and urban regeneration?
    Mr. Hunt: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would like to say all that again, as he not only got his facts wrong, but he got most of the statistics wrong as well. The urban programme was the first major public spending programme targeted solely on inner cities. It has been a tremendous success. The latest expenditure plans show that substantial increased resources are available. Within urban block expenditure there are more resources for the urban development corporations and city grant, because these items are much more successful in attracting private sector investment to inner cities.

    Sewage Discharges
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to enable him to override those local authorities which permit new outlets for the discharge of raw sewage into the sea.
    Mr. Howard: Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is responsible for granting authorisations for the discharge of sewage into the sea, although this responsibility will transfer to the National Rivers Authority from I September 1989.
    Mr. Speller: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend, who represents Folkestone—another seaside town—how long it will be before his Department accepts responsibility for what goes into the waters around our coasts? Does he recall that, over the past four weeks his Department has told me in answer to questions first, that there is no target date for our beaches and water meeting the EEC standards; secondly, that all planning requirements are the responsibility of local government; thirdly, that all matters relating to pollution are matters for water authorities, but those concerning new pollution are within the responsibility of Her Majesty's barely formed inspectorate of pollution; and, fourthly, that all new sea outfalls are to be considered as the logical way of disposing of raw sewage? May I finally ask my hon. and learned Friend——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That will be the fifth question.
    Mr. Speller: Fifthly, may I ask my hon. and learned Friend whether, in answer to my question, which he has not answered, he will seek to revoke the permission whereby Welsh Water, Wessex Water and South West

    1013
    Water may each pollute the Bristol channel over the next 12 months? Will my hon. and learned Friend stop that happening?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Howard: The accelerated programme of dealing with bathing waters is intended to achieve compliance with the European Community's directive by the mid-1990s. Although we are always prepared to examine new evidence that will help us assess the effect of the schemes to which my hon. Friend referred, all the evidence, including that of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, suggests that dealing with sewage by long sea outfalls at coastal resorts is in many circumstances the most effective way of dealing with the problem. If my hon. Friend has fresh evidence to bring before us, of course we will be happy to consider it.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Minister agree that in most cases we are talking the lack of investment in what amounts to a massive slum below the surface for almost every major city and town? When will the Government recognise that only by tackling this problem will they begin to deal with the pollution of rivers and streams?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will remember, no doubt, that the Government that he supported cut investment in sewerage services by 50 per cent. The Sandown dock scheme in Liverpool, which will shortly be in operation, will provide a method of treating sewage produced in Liverpool which, until now, has been pumped into the Mersey—not through long sea outfalls but in a way that I imagine no hon. Member would condone. Vast improvements will be achieved as a result of the Sandown dock scheme. That is an example of the investment in these facilities that has taken place under the present Government.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Minister realise that the majority of the British public cannot accept his complacency on this issue and that they believe that the Government should take a lead? Is it not a fact that at present only the British EEC representatives object to an EEC proposal for a directive that will prevent the dumping of sewage sludge at sea and long sewage outfalls for raw sewage being put into the sea? Why is Britain out of line, given all the recent evidence on this subject? Do the Government object because they favour the dumping of sewage at sea, or because they do not want the privatised water companies to have to pick up the bill for compliance?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady is wholly wrong; we are not objecting. We have yet to see the text of the draft European Commission directive on these matters because it has not yet been published. The hon. Lady should recognise that there is no easy solution to the problem and that many people would regard with dismay a requirement to construct sewage treatment works on the front at every seaside coastal resort with the consequent lorries going to and fro taking sludge away from the works. Perhaps the hon. Lady would prefer an incinerator with all the environmental consequences which would follow from that method of dealing with the matter.

    Housing Corporation
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of funding for the Housing Corporation in (a) 1987–88 and (b) 1988–89.
    Mr. Howard: The Housing Corporation's gross capital expenditure was £752 million in 1987–88 and £791 million in 1988–89.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that over the years, the Housing Corporation has done an excellent job, but that there are two matters about the Housing Corporation that concern people at present? First, they are concerned about alms houses because of the change in the law. I have had letters, as I am sure other hon. Members have from alms house residents who are fearful of the bureaucracy and heavy handedness of the Housing Corporation in regard to well-established alms houses. Secondly, has my hon. and learned Friend had time to read the Housing Corporation's recent report about housing associations, in which all money spent is meant to be for those on lower incomes? As a result of changes in the rental system, too many people are stuck in the poverty trap. Housing benefit is too little and those who have little housing benefit have too low an income to pay the increased rents. Will my hon. and learned Friend examine that problem and ensure that the Housing Corporation is helpful?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to the Housing Corporation. I have studied the advice given by the Housing Corporation to alms house charities that are registered with the corporation. Its advice is useful and wholly innocuous. I have seen the remarks by the chairman of the Housing Corporation in his introduction to its latest annual report and I hope to meet him soon to discuss his observations.
    Mr. George Howarth: Does the Minister accept that although there is a growth in the approved development programme available to the Housing Corporation to fund housing association schemes, the system that his predecessor introduced last year is in such a mess that the budget is likely to be dramatically underspent? Instead of producing more houses, as was predicted, the system now produces fewer.
    Mr. Howard: I do not accept that. These are relatively early days in the new system and we should study how it works before rushing to such judgments.
    Mr. Raison: Given the drying up of council building, will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that in areas such as mine there is a substantial expansion of the funding made available to housing associations? There will not otherwise be enough housing to rent.
    Mr. Howard: I understand my right hon. Friend's concern. That is the objective of Government policy in this area. I shall examine my hon. Friend's comments when. I come to consider these matters.
    Mr. Soley: It says something about the Government's housing policy that they give responsibility for housing to a Minister who is already overworked with the water privatisation problem. How is it that the housing associations, which have not yet reached the level of provision they achieved in the mid-1970s, are expected to

    1015
    solve the acute crisis of a lack of low-cost accommodation for rent or sale when we have such an absurdly inadequate programme through the Housing Corporation and through other means under this Government?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concern about my work load. I assure him that the whole range of Government policies in these matters is designed to deal with the problem to which he referred and that we will be seen to be dealing with that problem with increasing effectiveness as time goes on.

    Pollution
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he is taking to reduce environmental pollution.
    Mr. Chris Patten: We are setting higher standards to reduce pollution; we have brought forward, and will bring forward, legislation to reform pollution control systems and to strengthen the powers available to control pollution at source and we have taken the lead in developing international initiatives on the environment.
    Mr. Adley: I do not recall any hon. Member doing this so far, but let me welcome my right hon. Friend wholeheartedly to his new position—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The whole House looks forward to his achieving the objectives that he stated in that answer.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that he now has the opportunity to stamp his mark irrevocably on the environment of Britain and that the internal combustion engine might be a good place for him to start? Does he agree that the oil companies and the motor manufacturing industry have for years dictated a slow pace of change in cleaning up the environment? Will he examine what is happening in California, where legislation is contemplated to eliminate the internal combustion engine by the year 2007 and to replace vehicles that use it with electric vehicles? Does he agree that, if we could do that here, the Patten Act, if it ever came to pass, would stand the test of time on the statute book?
    Mr. Patten: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I should quite like to be in California at the moment—[Interruption.]—or, indeed, at any time. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) will know that in California there was a revolt against a tax based on the value of property rather similar to the tax that he proposes.
    Let me answer my hon. Friend's question. California's problems are much worse than anything that we face here, partly because of the number of cars, partly because of the climate and partly because, as I understand it, meteorological factors trap pollution in the air at a lower level. That said, I think that we should examine evidence from other countries and be ready to learn from them when we can. The environmental problems that we face are global and we must co-operate in solving them.
    Mr. Alton: I endorse the congratulatory remarks that have been made to the Secretary of State. As he goes about making his mark, will he give some thought to part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and in particular to the way in which it is enforced by the water authorities? Is he aware that last year the North West water authority brought just 23 prosecutions against companies involved
    1016
    in pollution and that the average fine was £670? Given the scale of the problem, does the Secretary of State agree that that is a paltry fine to impose on those responsible for pollution and that fines need to be looked at again in accordance with the principle that the polluter must pay?
    Mr. Patten: Whether deliberately or inadvertently, the hon. Gentleman has made a powerful case for the establishment of a strong new pollution control body, such as the National Rivers Authority proposed by the Government, which will enforce controls on a consistent national basis.
    Mr. Marland: On environmental pollution, is my right hon. Friend aware that substantial efforts are being made by some private firms to rebottle CFCs from the back of old refrigerators and deep freezers? Bearing in mind that it is estimated that there are some 30,000 tonnes of CFCs banked in refrigerators, does my right hon. Friend think that his Department may be able to give some assistance in that vital development work in the interests of a cleaner environment?
    Mr. Patten: It should be in the interests of industry itself to produce the technology to deal with the problem, although I shall certainly look into my hon. Friend's suggestion. It is, of course, difficult to deal with existing CFCs in the back of refrigerators, but it is a technology which must be cracked.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Secretary of State agree with me that perhaps the single most important step taken by the Government recently to reduce environmental pollution was to remove the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) to the Department of Trade and Industry where he can pollute officially to his heart's content?
    Will the Secretary of State, who is new to his job, look closely at the problem of acid rain which is causing so much concern not only in this country but in Scandinavia?
    Mr. Patten: The great thing about the hon. Gentleman's jokes is that one can see them coming from the bottom of Victoria street. We are spending a considerable amount more on reducing emissions and the right hon. Gentleman—sorry, I was presumptuous—the hon. Gentleman——
    Mr. Tony Banks: Don't worry, I can wait.
    Mr. Patten: The rest of the House will join the hon. Gentleman in that.
    We are spending £2 billion on reducing sulphur dioxide emissions from existing large plants and we will continue to give the issue the priority that it deserves.
    Dame Peggy Fenner: Will my right hon. Friend accept that my delight at his new role is tempered only by my disappointment that he has left a role in which he could have been the first international Minister to try to do something about the destruction of the rain forests? Will he join me in commending the action of the Countryside Commission in establishing forests in this country, recognising that the rest of the world should follow that example to counter the destruction of the rain forests?
    Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a bit thick for us in Europe and north America to lecture developing countries about the destruction of the rain forests when we have made such a fist in the past 200 years

    1017
    of destroying our own forests. The work carried out by the Forestry Commission is particularly important both nationally and internationally and we must consider issues such as reforestation from an economic as well as a topographical and ecological point of view. That is why I appointed today Professor David Pearce, the professor of economics at University college London and director of the London environmental economic centre, as a special adviser to provide me with economic advice on environmental matters.
    Dr. Cunningham: With reference to the Secretary of State's remarks about taxes in California. I remind him that the poll tax is constitutionally outlawed in California.
    With regard to safeguarding the environment, has the Secretary of State had time yet to study the paper produced for the Prime Minister by the energy technology support unit about global warming and the greenhouse effect? Does he recognise the force of the argument in that paper which points out that energy conservation can make a four times bigger contribution to reducing those problems than developing nuclear power? Will he therefore, in developing his policies to safeguard the environment, press for a major programme of energy conservation on which he will have the support of Opposition Members?
    As the Secretary of State's predecessor said that it was the Government's intention to produce an environmental protection Bill in the autumn, will the Secretary of State consider discussions across the House about the nature and content of such a Bill? There should be a great deal of room for agreement on what such a Bill should include. I can tell the Secretary of State, as I told his predecessor, that the Opposition are willing to bring that co-operation to the House if there can be discussions.
    Mr. Patten: On the first point, I totally agree that improving energy efficiency has a vital role to play in dealing with the problem of global warming and in dealing therefore with the associated problem of climate change. That is true of this country and of all developed and developing countries. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second point, I want to make it clear straight away that I would not regard legislation that we might bring forward this autumn as our last word, or anyone's last word, on environmental protection.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: People are not very happy with the former Secretary of State's proposals.
    Mr. Patten: That is not the point and I will get to that if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to.
    There is an argument, which many people have put forward, that in addition to the legislation that we introduce this autumn, we should in due course publish a White Paper setting out longer-term objectives for the environment. I will want to consider that with my right hon. and hon. Friends.
    I shall be happy at any stage, both in regard to legislation and in regard to any further statements of national policy that we produce, to talk to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and to his hon. Friends about how we can try to ensure that we meet the priorities of the environmental agenda as effectively as possible. It would help if, just from time to time,
    1018
    Opposition Members would not regard every environmental statistic from the Government as a provocation. It would be nice if, occasionally, the Labour party would recognise achievements when they are made.

    Community Projects
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will increase the amount of money allocated by urban development corporations for the purpose of community projects and voluntary sector initiatives; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Hunt: It is for each urban development corporation to decide, within the total budget we have provided, what degree of resources to devote to community projects and voluntary sector initiatives.
    Mr. Michie: On 24 May, the Minister told the House that a miserly 0·7 per cent. of the budget for the Sheffield UDC would be allocated to the voluntary community initiative. If the Government want to convince the community that UDCs are good for it, instead of criticising hon. Members who, with good reason, continue to knock UDCs, why do the Government not get their own house in order and guarantee that more money and more resources will be available for the community initiative?
    Mr. Hunt: It is for the hon. Gentleman's own UDC to decide how to allocate funds, and the proportion of the budget that it allocates to community groups and projects. I pay tribute to Sheffield, which is one of the few areas that have actually appointed a community director. That is a very good move. UDCs should actively seek good relations and co-operation with local community groups.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are alleged to be two great problems? One is the rundown of the inner cities and the other is the enormous increase in the number of elderly people? Does he agree also that the second is not a problem but an opportunity? If more elderly people could be persuaded and helped to offer their skills and experience as volunteers, they could make an enormous impact on the problems of inner cities. To do that, they require a certain amount of pump-priming finance, and I hope that his Department will carefully look at that matter.
    Mr. Hunt: I certainly hope that those involved in decision making within UDCs will pay attention to what my hon. Friend has said. I prefer to recognise the problem as the challenge of the young-old. Those who retire earlier have a tremendous potential contribution to make to the community, particularly to inner cities.
    .Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister accept that there is nothing at all wrong with new administrative organisations and activities to solve new problems? We accept that UDCs have a role to play. Will he look at what has been happening in docklands and the UDC there? It is reported that hundreds of new dwellings that cannot be sold are being rented by the private sector at over £200 a week, fully funded by housing benefit. Surely it was not the intention that urban development corporations should result in such mismanagement of public funds.
    Mr. Hunt: The whole point of our positive policies is to try to encourage people to want to live and work once

    1019
    again in those crucial areas. The docklands UDC has been a marvellous example of a stimulus to that area. I would not want to deride its progress as the hon. Gentleman has.

    Bathing Water
    Mr. Bevan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which bathing waters were identified for the purposes of the 1975 European Community bathing waters directive in (a) May 1979 and (b) May 1989.
    Mr. Howard: The European Community's bathing water directive was adopted in December 1975 and gave member states two years to identify suitable bathing waters. By May 1979, no bathing waters had been identified by the then Labour Government. By May 1989, 403 coastal bathing waters had been identified. A full list of the identified bathing waters has been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Bevan: While thanking my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, I invite him to contrast the non-existent policy of the previous Labour Government with that of this Government. When he considers the challenge of clean beaches and holidaying, would he prefer a warm resort with beautifully clean water in Britain or one in the mucky Mediterranean or the atrociously dirty Adriatic, particularly in Italy?
    Mr. Howard: I would, indeed, no doubt in company with my hon. Friend, prefer a beach in this country. My hon. Friend is entirely right. The figures speak for themselves and no further comment would be necessary if it were not that the Labour party consistently criticises the Government's performance and record on these matters, while it is blind and deaf to its own.

    Building and Maintenance (Competition)
    Mr. Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with local authority organisations over changes in the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Hunt: My right hon. Friend and I have not had such consultations although our predecessors did.
    Mr. Barron: Will the Minister take notice of the comment of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that the consultation on the new definition of emergency work is unworkable? It believes that the extension of competitive tendering to maintenance contracts where the value does not exceed 10 per cent. of the original contract would create chaos, not only in the direct labour organisations in the public sector but in the private sector. The tenders would be for small amounts and the administrative costs would be higher than the costs of doing the job.
    Mr. Hunt: On the first point, we are trying to redefine the exemption of emergency work and I shall take note of the comments to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We want to make sure that only genuinely unpredictable work is exempt and we are considering comments on our proposed redefinition. On the second point, it is important to extend competition to all building and maintenance work, to increase value for money for ratepayers and, in future, community charge payers.
    Mr. Latham: Before my hon. Friend proceeds with legislation to implement the proposals in the town and country planning White Paper of a few months ago, will he consider it again carefully? It has the unique disadvantage of annoying county councils, district councils, house builders and the Council for the Protection of Rural England.
    Mr. Hunt: I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Blunkett: On 4 April, the Under-Secretary of State told us in the Local Government and Housing Bill Standing Committee that treasurers and directors of finance knew exactly the implications of the Bill's proposals for capital expenditure. Does he accept that that is simply not the case and that unless local authorities are informed quickly of the implications of that legislation, capital programmes in education, buildings, social services, roads and housing will be considerably disrupted? The result will be a threat to services and jobs, brought about by the inability of the Department of the Environment to come up with the answers.
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman will recall that before the Bill setting out the proposals for this new system of capital finance was drafted, a consultation document was produced outlining the main objectives of the new system. We had the widest possible consultation on it and all the views expressed were taken into consideration when drafting the Bill. Since then, there have been six meetings of the capital programmes working party, at which proposals were discussed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the working party is attended by representatives of the local authority associations and Government Departments.

    East Quayside Development (Newcastle)
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the decision by the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation to concentrate the £20 million subsidy on the East Quayside development in Newcastle; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the decision by the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation to concentrate £20 million of subsidy on the East Quayside development in Newcastle; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Hunt: The answer is none. The Tyne and Wear development corporation has yet to determine the precise extent of its contribution to the proposed development at East Quayside.
    Mr. Cousins: The Minister may not yet appreciate the enormous potential for commercial and financial services development in the city of Newcastle, so will he investigate why the urban development corporation in the city is obsessed with that one site on East Quayside, when at the west end of Central station there is a larger, flatter and more accessible site already in its ownership, but which does not figure in its plans or programmes?
    Mr. Hunt: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has discussed what he has just said with the city council, but as I understand it, the city council supported this proposal which I believe represents a major opportunity
    1022
    for a comprehensive redevelopment of a prominent riverside site, which will help change the perspective of an area which was previously semi-derelict.

Local Government Finance (Scotland)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about local government finance in Scotland.
First, I wish to announce my decision on grant for Scottish local authorities in respect of 1990–91. In reaching that decision, I have had in mind the views expressed to me by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on its estimates of what it regards as required spending levels next year. I have also had in mind the substantial increase in the planned volume of spending by Scottish authorities this year, and the scope that undoubtedly exists for economies and efficiency improvements. A further factor is my undertaking given some time ago that—subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary legislative changes—I would make substantial initial progress next year in reducing the rate burden on Scottish businesses.
What I am announcing today is the total of aggregate Exchequer grant—that is, the total of specific grants and revenue support grant—that will be paid to Scottish local authorities for 1990–91.
I propose that aggregate Exchequer grant for 1990–91 should be set at £2,739 million. This is £242 million or 9·7 per cent. higher than the corresponding figure for this year. This figure, however, includes extra grant to allow business rates to be substantially reduced in line with the Government's stated objective of eliminating the difference in non-domestic rates between Scotland and England.
My new proposals on business rates, which I announced on 8 May, have been widely welcomed in Scotland, and we lost no time in presenting legislative proposals to the House on 14 June. I am happy to announce today that I propose that the rate bill for Scottish business next year should be reduced below what it would otherwise be by the sum of £80 million. The Confederation of British Industry has estimated the excess rate burden on Scottish business to be around £250 million, and we will therefore be closing that gap by almost a third in a single year. This represents very substantial progress. I know that this, together with the other steps that are being taken on harmonisation of valuation procedures north and south of the border, will be warmly welcomed by Scottish business and industry and by all those for whom the private sector in Scotland provides employment.
Local authorities will be compensated by increased grant of £67 million, which is included in the total figure of aggregate Exchequer grant which I have already given. As their contribution to this reduction in business rates, and in recognition of their welcome support for this policy, I am asking local authorities to recover the balance of £13 million by efficiency savings. This compares with total current expenditure for next year estimated by COSLA to be over £5,000 million. I am confident that it should be well within their capability to achieve these modest savings without threat to standards of service. My Department has already had useful discussions with COSLA on implementation of the new policy, details of which will be announced in the autumn.
The remainder of the total of aggregate Exchequer grant represents an increase of 7 per cent. on this year's figure. Taken together with business rate income, it should
1024
enable local authorities, if they are prepared to take a grip on their spending, to set community charges not significantly higher on average than this year's levels. I hope that many authorities will already have recognised their excessive budgeting for this year and, in the knowledge of the reasonable grant settlement that I am announcing today, will now plan for reasonable levels of spending and of community charge next year. Detailed proposals for grant distribution will be put to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for consultation, in the usual way, in the autumn.
I also wish to take this opportunity to announce a number of changes that I am proposing to make to the arrangements for administering the standard community charge in Scotland. As hon. Members are aware, the standard community charge is paid by owners, or long-term tenants, of houses such as second homes which are not used as someone's sole or main residence. I have received a significant number of representations about the standard community charge and recently received a paper from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities outlining suggestions for change. I am quite clear that many of the problems that have arisen can be attributed directly to local authorities' decisions in almost every case to set their standard community charge multipliers at the maximum of two times the personal community charge, when they had been given discretion to set the multiplier anywhere between one and two.
Nevertheless, and in the light of the real problems that have as a result arisen, I have decided to make the following changes to the present arrangements. First, I intend to take powers to define certain classes of premises for which I will be able to prescribe a maximum multiplier. I will use that power to tackle, in particular, the very difficult case of the house that is unoccupied because the owner has to live with friends or relatives because of illness or infirmity. That is one situation in which a multiplier of up to two seems too high. If other categories of a comparable kind emerge, those powers will enable me to make provision for them.
I will also make provision to allow local authorities to determine, subject to certain conditions, their own classes of premises for which they could set different multipliers. That will allow them to take account of circumstances not covered by classes that I might prescribe, but which it is right should be the subject of local decision. That will give them, for example, discretion to set a different multiplier for the homes of old people in general who are living with relatives and for the homes of people obliged by their jobs to live in tied houses. Local authorities could also create other classes, depending on local circumstances; and a regional council would be able to set different maximum multipliers for its classes in different district council areas, something specifically requested by COSLA in the proposals which it put to me.
As a result, local authorities will have considerably greater flexibility in their operation of the standard community charge arrangements. I know, therefore, that the new arrangements will be welcomed. I am proposing that the necessary amendments to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 to allow for the introduction of those changes should be made in the context of the Local Government and Housing Bill, and amendments to that Bill will be tabled. The changes will come into effect for the financial year 1990–91.

1025
Lastly, I propose to redefine the boundary between domestic and non-domestic property so that single dwellings available for holiday letting are subject to non-domestic rating rather than the standard community charge.
These proposals tackle the main problems that have emerged in relation to the incidence of the standard charge and are a direct response to the concerns expressed by local authorities and others. I hope that local authorities will reciprocate by using the additional discretion that they have now been given.
Mr. Donald Dewar: This is clearly a significant statement. It is good to see some signs that the Government have been listening and, perhaps, even learning. The aggregate Exchequer grant is more generous than in some previous years. I hesitate, but it would be pleasant, to ascribe that to the increasing influence of the new chairman of the Tory party in Scotland. However, that is probably optimistic.
The increase of 9·7 per cent. sounds generous, but a number of caveats must be made. It includes the £67 million for the reduction in the non-domestic rate. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that the true increase is about 7 per cent. As he knows, inflation is running at more than 8 per cent. at present, so there is certainly no way in which that could be said to represent an increase in the aggregate Exchequer grant in real terms. Will the Secretary of State accept that a great deal depends on the indexation of the non-domestic rate, which I understand is a question for the Chancellor? If that were to be below the retail prices index figure, it would directly affect a council's income.
I welcome the move to help the non-domestic ratepayer. The total allocated this year is £80 million. Will the Secretary of State give an estimate of the gap to be closed? I have seen figures for the subsidy required, which varies between £250 million and £400 million. No doubt, much depends on the harmonisation of rateable value and, as well as commenting on the gap, could the Secretary of State say a word or two about how that is progressing and whether it will be completed in the revaluation of 1990? In particular, can he say whether his approach, when using the £80 million, will sharply reduce the disparity in the central belt, where the non-domestic rate is highest, or whether he intends to reduce the differential, taking Scotland as a whole? What will be the impact of today's announcement on industrial derating? Will it be held at 40 per cent.?
I welcome any signs of flexibility on the standard community charge. Many—people all hon. Members will know of such cases in their constituencies—have modest second homes, perhaps cottages and flats, whose value is reflected in a low rate bill. They have suddently been faced with a massive increase of £400 or £500 with the arrival of the poll tax. I am glad that something has been done about the glaring injustice of an old person who moves in with relatives finding that his or her house is suddenly classed as a second home.
Am I right, however, in thinking that the general power to vary the standard charge between a multiplier of nil and two must be exercised on a district basis? For example, will a regional council be competent to decide that certain categories of houses, perhaps those that were below a certain rateable value in the last year of the old system, should attract a lower multiplier than others in the same
1026
district? If that is not so, regional councils will be put in the difficult position of having to take a blanket approach that will inevitably create anomalies.
Does the Secretary of State accept that it is almost impossible to reconcile the treatment of second homes, by means of what is unashamedly a property tax, with the poll tax, which is a form of individual taxation?
While we are dealing with injustices, can the Secretary of State say whether he has had second thoughts about Alzheimer's disease because of the strong medical case which suggests that there is no essential difficulty in assessing when the illness has reached the point when exemption is justified? Is not the present situation, where patients with exactly the same presenting symptoms are treated in different ways for poll tax purposes, completely indefensible? Will he move on that matter?
The Secretary of State and his PR department have worked hard to try to establish this as a generous settlement. In fact, it is worse than a standstill, and it does nothing to undo the damage done to essential services and to the fabric of local democracy in recent years. He will certainly have to do better.
Mr. Rifkind: I think that the last two sentences were the only part of the hon. Gentleman's comments that were written before he saw the statement, as they bore little relation to his other comments. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, which described the settlement as "more generous than in recent years". I appreciate that his view of recent years may not be the same as mine. Nevertheless, I think that, by his standards, that amounts to a compliment. I confirm that the increase, when one removes the element relating to business rates, is 7 per cent. The hon. Gentleman suggests that is not sufficient, but it was COSLA itself which said that that was what it needed.
Mr. Dewar indicated dissent.
Mr. Rifkind: It is no use the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. Mr. MacIver, the general secretary of COSLA, said that it required at least 7 per cent. to meet its needs—[HON. MEMBERS: "At least."]—and that is exactly what it has been provided with. [HON. MEMBERS: "When did he say that?"] I am happy to give that information. He was quoted in an article in the Glasgow Herald on 20 July as saying:
"We are certainly hoping for an increase of at least 7 per cent. for the coming year."
The Government have been happy to respond to that aspiration, and that is the least that we are entitled to claim.
The hon. Member for Garscadden welcomed the proposals on business rates. I am grateful to him for that. The figure—or the gap—that has to be accommodated is £250 million. The CBI in Scotland has identified that figure and the Government have endorsed it as their best assessment of the gap. Meeting that to the extent of £80 million in the current year is a massive step towards eliminating a discrepancy that has been caused primarily by the high level of Scottish local authority expenditure, which the previous Labour Government made no attempt to deal with. Distribution will be dealt with later in the year when we announce the distribution of grant available.

1027
Industrial derating will continue until the gap between rating levels in Scotland and England is eliminated. The original purpose of industrial derating was to assist with that difficulty.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's friendly comments on what the Government propose to do about the standard charge. I have to emphasis that what we are proposing is not a property tax—[Interruption.] No. As I explained, it is quite simple. The level of discretion available to the local authority will not depend on the kind of property that it is dealing with, but on the personal circumstances of the individual concerned. That is why it is consistent with the community charge principles on which we have put forward these matters.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Alzheimer's disease and whether the Government had anything to add on that matter. We have emphasised all along that if a method of dealing with the matter in a responsible way is identified in the way that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has explained on several occasions, we would have no objection in principle to seeking to accommodate people. I have nothing to say to the House today about that matter and I do not know whether it will be possible for such a distinction to be identified.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that the difficulties in which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) found himself underlined the success of the statement? I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will not be surprised if I concentrate on the standard community charge, on which I have campaigned and plagued him and our hon. Friend the Minister of State in recent months. I thank him warmly for his announcement. We are less worried about the classification of the charge as long as it moves in the right direction—as it does.
I should like to ask two questions. First, is my right hon. and learned Friend quite sure that it is right to leave discretion about some aspects with local authorities, given the way that local authorities have extracted the maximum that they are able to extract in the current year? Secondly, what is the position of people with a second home which may or may not be let but which may be held by someone of modest means who has not been paying much in rates? Will that be covered? If it is not, it should be.
Mr. Rifkind: I very much hope that even now local authorities will seriously consider whether they should insist on the maximum multiple or whether, as a generality, it would be appropriate to have a more modest figure. That option is available to them and I hope that they will take it. I thank my right hon. Friend for his warm welcome for the standard charge proposals. He explicitly asked about matters being left to the discretion of local authorities. We gave considerable thought to that question and think that it is appropriate that it should be left to local authority discretion.
As I sought to explain earlier, we are essentially dealing with the personal circumstances of individual standard charge payers. It would be difficult, either through primary legislation or by methods determined entirely by central Government, to distinguish in a way that would be sensitive to the personal circumstances of such standard
1028
charge payers. I am pleased that, in its paper to us, COSLA said that if given these powers it would wish to use them and would recommend to local authorities that they should be used for the purposes that I have indicated. Therefore, we have every reason to assume that local authorities will use the powers that they asked for and have been given.
Mr. David Steel: We too welcome the sinner who repenteth. The Secretary of State will remember that only a month ago we moved a new clause to provide exactly this provision in the English Bill. It is a great pity that it was not accepted at that time. Some of us wish that the sinner would sound as if he repenteth. Does the Secretary of State accept that his repeated assertion that local authorities decided to apply a multiplier of two ignores the fact that the revenue support grant formula that he imposed assumed that they would apply that multiplier? In view of what the Secretary of State has said, will he say that if they do not do so in future they will not suffer under the revenue support grant system? As I understand it, if they had applied a multiplier lower than two in the past, they would have had to pass on the excess charge to all community charge payers at a level of perhaps £2 or £3 a head. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman come clean and admit that that is so?
Secondly, I should like to ask about the 7 per cent. support assumption in the coming year. As we have not yet got the NALGO pay settlement and as inflation is already running at 8·3 per cent., is that assumption not yet another sign that local government will continue to be severely squeezed? Local authorities in my area which are careful spenders will strongly resent that. Will he explain how it is that under this system Scottish poll tax payers will end up facing an average of well over £300 next year, compared with the English average of £275 and the Welsh average of £175? How has the Secretary of State for Wales managed to screw more out of the Treasury than the right hon. and learned Gentleman got?
Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me three questions, to which I shall respond. First, I am intrigued by this assumption that local authorities paid complete attention to the assumption in the rate support grant settlement with regard to the multiplier. If that was of such importance to them, I shall bear it in mind when determining what the assumption should be next year and we shall see what effect it has on local authority use of that discretion next year. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting that proposition to me.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the NALGO pay settlements, which have not yet been resolved. Local authorities are the employers, so they have it in their own hands to determine what settlement they will agree to. I assume that COSLA had that in mind when it said that a 7 per cent. grant would meet its needs and that that was what it expected.
Thirdly, I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has asked me to explain the different assumptions that are being made about the likely level of community charge in Scotland compared with England and Wales. The reason is a simple one, which relates entirely to the different levels of local authority spending. Despite high grants from the Scottish Office—probably a level of grant that compares extremely favourably with either England or Wales—the expenditure of Scottish local authorities per capita is £978,

1029
while in England it is £773 and in Wales £776. That is for comparable services, eliminating services, such as water, that are carried out by local authorities in Scotland, but not in England. Therefore, for exactly comparable services, there is expenditure per capita of £200 more in Scotland than in England or Wales. Therefore, I say to local authorities, "Physician, heal thyself."
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his excellent statement. I ask him to remind Scottish local authorities that it was purely for political reasons that they used the multiplier of two. When he comes to see what comparable categories emerge in the orders that he proposes, will he use as general a concept as possible so that it is not restricted to individual types, such as those that he mentioned, but in general gives equity to all who deserve it and should not be paying such a high charge?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the purpose of the discretion that has been made available is to deal with what both sides of the House would recognise are the particularly difficult cases—for example, an elderly person who might be living with a son or daughter, keeping his home empty for the time being while deciding whether he wishes to return to it, or a person who might have bought a house for his retirement but is still living in tied accommodation, or other such categories. When dealing with such cases, it is important that the full standard charge is not insisted upon. Local authorities have said that they would wish to use the discretion if they were given it to help in such cases and we are happy to enable them to do so.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: If the Government are intent on introducing amending legislation on local government finance, will the Secretary of State also take the opportunity to introduce an amendment to stop the disgraceful practice whereby people are being hounded for the poll tax even after they are dead?
Mr. Rifkind: I ask the hon. Gentleman to address any such complaints to the local authority in which he lives. The local authority is not answerable to me for the way in which it chooses to go for any debts to which it may be entitled.
Mr. Allan Stewart: I warmly welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend said about business rates. which are of great importance to jobs and the competitiveness of Scottish industry. Was not my right hon. and learned Friend's generous rate support grant for this year simply followed by excessive increases in expenditure by far too many Scottish local authorities? Does not the success of what he has said about RSG, and his welcome moves on the standard community charge, depend on the assumption that Scottish local authorities will act reasonably? If that assumption is not fulfilled, there will be outrage in Scotland.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend can take some comfort from this: given that the increase in revenue support grant is equivalent to the projected level of inflation and at a figure that the local authorities themselves said corresponded to their needs, and if, as a consequence of the overall position, there is higher expenditure and there
1030
are higher community charges than necessary, the finger of responsibility can be pointed in only one direction. I believe that that will concentrate the mind wonderfully.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Surely, at 7 per cent., the settlement is below the rate of inflation and a poorer deal than the one obtained in England and Wales—especially at a time of high interest rates. It must mean a cut in local government services.
When making these changes, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look into the problem of those with Alzheimer's disease and explain what is holding him back from doing something about the inherent unfairnesses in the legislation?
Mr. Rifkind: On the second point, I cannot usefully add to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State has said on several previous occasions.
On the earlier point, the hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the rate of inflation that is relevant is not the current rate but the projected rate for the financial year in question. That is presumably why COSLA itself has said that 7 per cent. is appropriate.
Mr. Dick Douglas: When removing the supposed anomaly in relation to the standard rate, will the Minister have a care? Apparently, it will apply prospectively in England and Wales but not retrospectively in Scotland, because people will have already paid on properties that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says should be excluded.
In relation to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), I have today received a letter saying that the local authority in Fife has gone for a four-day period. A man aged 55 died in Kincardine, and the authority has gone for £3·21. W hat feelings must be in the mind of the man's widow now that the local authority has imposed that on her? The Secretary of State must not tell us that the local authority is doing this willingly; it is doing it because it knows that the Accounts Commission would be on to it if it did not.
Mr. Rifkind: That is not true. I seem to recollect reading of a similar case in Grampian region in which, once the authority had identified the circumstances, it immediately declared them a de minimis case in which the sum would not be requested.
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that local authorities can use their discretion to decide whether the circumstances are such that they will not seek payment. Naturally, we would all hope that local authorities will apply appropriate sensitivity to cases of personal tragedy of this sort—it is within their power to do so. The local authority in the Grampian region, in circumstances with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar, did just that. I do not know the circumstances of his particular case, but if the local authority believes that it is justified to do so, it has complete discretion to act in the way that the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
Mr Harry Ewing: Does not 'the Secretary of State understand the reason why £200 per head more is spent in Scotland than in England and Wales? It is because of his activities of the past few years in relation to local government services such as education, housing, roads and social work. We have more problems

1031
in Scotland with these local government services precisely because of the activities of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and other Scottish Office Ministers.
Why, having included a multiplier of two in the. legislation for the poll tax, does the Secretary of State now complain because local authorities are using that multiplier? He wants none of the blame for putting it in the legislation, but he now wants the credit for changing the legislation which he was responsible for imposing on local government in the first place.
As for the point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas)—the problem of the sending out of accounts to people who have died since the last payment of the poll tax—I want the Secretary of State now to give every regional and islands authority in Scotland, and its councillors, an absolute guarantee that if they do not charge this poll tax they will not be surcharged. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is obliged to provide such a guarantee.
Mr. Rifkind: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, questions of surcharge only arise—[Interruption.] I hope the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of letting me answer his point. Such questions arise only when there is a recommendation from the Accounts Commission; but it goes without saying that if a local authority is faced with a personal tragedy, where the sums involved are very small, and it exercises its discretion not to seek payment of the account, I cannot conceive of any situation in which a Secretary of State would want to surcharge the councillors in question. I do not think that I can be more explicit than that in expressing my views.
The hon. Gentleman made comparisons with England and Wales. He tries very hard, but he knows perfectly well that the policies pursued by the Government apply to Scotland, England and Wales. Many Labour-controlled authorities in Wales appear to live with levels of expenditure not just marginally but dramatically—as much as £200 per capita—less than Labour-controlled authorities in Scotland. That cannot be explained on the basis of Government policy, which is consistent throughout the United Kingdom, although local authority expenditure is not consistent throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does the Secretary of State not realise that the statement is bitter news to thousands of carers—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh but this year those people are being driven from their original homes because they have chosen to move in with and look after disabled and elderly relatives, often leaving country dwellings for which the rates were under £100. They are now having to find up to £500 and £600 this year. Why does the Secretary of State not offer them more help now? By the time the statement comes into effect, they will have sold the original properties and will have no way back.
Mr. Rifkind: I would not be able to accuse the hon. Gentleman of humbug if he had put that proposition to Lothian regional council when it was contemplating applying the full multiplier with the full support of the hon. Gentleman and his Labour party colleagues.
Mr. John McAllion: If the Secretary of State thinks that 7 per cent. in Scotland is sufficient to cover the projected growth of inflation for next year, will he explain why it was necessary for his right hon. Friend to announce an 8·5 per cent. increase for England and Wales last week? Furthermore, will he explain why it is necessary to have a full-year transitional safety net to cushion the impact of the poll tax in England and Wales but not in Scotland? If he believes that the people of Scotland should remain part of a unitary United Kingdom, why does he persistently allow Scotland to be treated as an inferior, less deserving and less worthy part of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Rifkind: First, my right hon. Friend did not announce an 8·5 per cent. increase for England and Wales. Secondly, it is not only my view that 7 per cent. is sufficient; it is also the view of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman appears to be completely ignorant of the fact that there is a safety net in Scotland, which is applied in much the same way as that for England and Wales.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: While most of us in the House recognise that the Secretary of State has shown an element of flexibility on the community charge, perhaps his end-of-term report card should be stamped, "Could do better". Why has he not produced clearer definitions of the sole or main residence for individuals? That is particularly important in rural constituencies, where people who live away from home for the purposes of work are being charged standard rate community charge in their digs while paying the personal community charge at the family home.
Secondly, in regard to poll tax accounts being issued to families of the recently deceased, will he advise the House what he regards as a small amount, as in my constituency, the sum has been as small as £1·34? Is it not the Government's responsibility to give clear guidance to our regional and islands authorities on the matter, because the reply that I received from his colleague the Minister of State, who was then responsible for the community charge, said that councils must take account of what the auditors say? If the auditors recommend that the poll tax on the recently deceased has to be collected, the councils are placed in a difficult position. It is therefore up to the Government to produce clear guidance stating that poll tax will not be charged for the month in which a person died.
Mr. Rifkind: Naturally, I will give some thought to whether guidance to local authorities would be helpful, but the hon. Lady will appreciate that it can be only guidance and the local authority must take its own decisions in the light of the circumstances. Individual local authorities have already shown a willingness to use common sense and their discretion in this matter, showing that that is perfectly available to them if they choose to use it.
The hon. Lady also asked about sole or main residence, but she will appreciate that, in particular cases, that is primarily a matter for the community charge registration officer. Today I have said that local authorities will have much greater local discretion to deal with particular classes of situation, which may be a way in which to meet the point raised by the hon. Lady.
Mr. John Home Robertson: The Secretary of State said that the Government might be prepared to do something about the imposition of the poll tax on people suffering from conditions such as Alzheimer's disease if someone else can come up with some suitable suggestions. May I gently remind the Secretary of State that he is, whether anyone likes it or not, the government of Scotland? He is responsible for the poll tax and he is responsible for the unfair application of the tax on such people. I am sure that all of us welcome the fact that the Government have acknowledged that the standard poll tax is unfair and unworkable, although we are now left with multiple discretion among local authorities and the Scottish Office, which could make things even worse. Does he accept that the basic iniquity still exists, because a family on a low income in a small house will still pay more than Her Majesty the Queen with a second home at Balmoral castle?
Mr. Rifkind: On Alzheimer's disease, may I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that those suffering from that disease were liable for the payment of domestic rates for many years without the hon. Gentleman feeling obliged to argue that that was iniquitous or undesirable. [Interruption.] No, they did not get exempted if they were the ratepayers of the property concerned. Many people with Alzheimer's disease were obliged to pay domestic rates for many years and the Labour party never seemed to think that that was a matter against which it should campaign. The Labour party could at least have the integrity not to suggest that, somehow, such payment has only now become an issue because of the introduction of the community charge. We shall continue to consider the possibility of a proper system of assessment being devised. If that happens, we will then be happy to respond, but until we are able to do so, obviously there is nothing that I can add.
Mr. Alistair Darling: Does not the Secretary of State accept that the amount of money distributed to each local authority is the major factor in determining how high or low the poll tax is? Is he proposing to follow the example of the previous Secretary of State for the Environment by fixing the amount of the settlement in each case depending on the likely political fortunes of the Conservative party or is he prepared to treat each local authority in the same way? Is he aware that, had Lothian received the same safety-net arrangement as Strathclyde this year, the Lothian poll tax could have been between £60 and £80 lower than it is? Is he prepared to carry on rigging the figures in a desperate attempt to gain advantage in the regional elections next year in one of the few parts of the country where the Tories do not face an absolute rout?
Mr. Rifkind: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman could not find anything to say on the statement and therefore he wants to broaden the exchanges that we are having. He will know that it is a tradition in Scotland that matters of distribution are dealt with later in the year, after consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. He will also know that, usually, the formula that is applied for the distribution is agreed with COSLA.
The hon. Gentleman seems to be blissfully unaware of the fact that the subsidy of certain Scottish local authorities continued for many years with the acquiescence and indeed, enthusiasm, of the hon. Gentleman
1034
and his hon. Friends. It is this Government who are, for the first time, eliminating that subsidy, but rather than doing it all at once we are phasing it out over several years. The hon. Gentleman was happy to live with a subsidy when there was one, but now complains because we are phasing it out and says that it should be phased out all at once. That shows that he changes his views as quickly as he changes his mind.
Mr. Tom Clarke: If the relationship between the Secretary of State and COSLA is as cosy as he seems to suggest why is it necessary for him to produce an obscure and selective comment from the Glasgow Herald to justify that assertion? Can he tell the House precisely what discussions he has had with COSLA and what it has said to him about his proposals? As part of that precision, when he talks about projections can he tell us the projected figure for inflation, because the House has not been told? What is the projected figure for wage settlements? We have not heard about that either. As the Secretary of State has referred to interest rates what projected figure does he have in mind for interest rates in respect of small businesses as well as local government? As we are anxious to hear what COSLA had to say, and as COSLA could not possibly have known about the Government's response to the Griffiths report, is there an extra ha'penny in the statement to recognise the new responsibilities for community care?
Mr. Rifkind: I have already said that certain of the preparatory work that may need to be done will be taken into account in the RSG settlement.
Our relationship with COSLA could never be as cosy as it was when the hon. Gentleman was its distinguished president, in the Government's early years. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman's departure from his local government responsibilities has inevitably had its effect. He asked me what COSLA's representations were. When I last met COSLA, it suggested, not only to me but publicly, that the Government were going to give it a grant increase of only 1·7 per cent. It went on record as saying that it needed at least 7 per cent. if it was to meet the needs of its local authorities. That is exactly what it has got. The hon. Gentleman should be the first to welcome that.
Mr. Brian Wilson: On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's latter comments on Alzheimer's disease, I remind him, although he surely needs no reminding, that the difference is that the poll tax is a personal charge, which, according to the Government's rhetoric, is accompanied by accountability by local government to the individual. I unreservedly welcome the relief that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's announcement will bring to those who care for the sick and elderly at home while the temporarily empty house is retained. The scandal is that it has taken three years of planning and four months of implementing the poll tax and will take another eight months of waiting for this cruelty to be addressed, under duress from the Opposition and local authorities.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the fundamental second home problem has still not been confronted by his statement because a district council will still be unable to differentiate between a second home single-end and a second home castle, and therein lies the endemic unfairness of the standard community charge?
Mr. Rifkind: The main reason why it has been necessary to respond in this way is that the local authorities throughout Scotland, with the honourable exceptions of Shetland Islands and Western Isles, have sought to impose the maximum standard charge, irrespective of the consequences to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. If those local authorities had not done so, these problems would not have arisen. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on that point.

Scottish Enterprise
4.11 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement. Last December, I published the Scottish Enterprise White Paper on my proposals to integrate the functions of the Scottish Development Agency, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Training Agency in Scotland. I invited comments by 31 March 1989.
I have been delighted by the volume and constructiveness of the 420 responses and by the extent of support demonstrated. In reaching my decisions, I have sought to build on that support. There was overwhelming agreement for the principle of creating two new bodies, in which the functions of the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board would be integrated with those of the Training Agency in Scotland.
Many welcomed the name "Scottish Enterprise", but some called for the retention of the names "Scottish Development Agency" and "Highlands and Islands Development Board", and there was strong insistence from the north, whatever title was chosen, to retain the word "Islands". We are creating a distinctive new structure which will be more than the sum of its parts and which requires a new identity. I have therefore concluded that the new bodies should be called Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise respectively. The SDA and HIDB logos are widely recognised, and I see merit in retaining them to provide an element of continuity, but that will be for the new bodies to decide, as will the way that they market themselves abroad.
There was virtual unanimity for the proposition that the network of local agencies, or enterprise companies, as we now intend to call them, should have a contractual relationship with Scottish Enterprise, in keeping with their private sector focus. The constitution of the companies means that there are important issues of public accountability, propriety, control of public expenditure and value for money to resolve, and I have asked my officials to seek ways of ensuring that public funds are properly safeguarded.
In the light of comments received, I am now proposing a network of 12 companies in the lowlands and eight in the highlands and islands. I have made available a map showing the proposed areas for each company, but where consortia feel that the map that I am proposing does not fit in with their ideas, I should, of course, be willing to consider specific proposals for variation. As regards functions, I can confirm that the full range of statutory powers that the SDA and HIDB now possess will be available for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, and I accept the recommendations that the latter should discharge the environmental role in the Highlands and Islands currently undertaken by the SDA.
I was impressed by the extent of support for devolving substantial powers relating to enterprise creation to the local enterprise companies from the outset, and against that background, my proposals now involve a major step in the direction of local delivery of economic as well as training functions from the start. We shall, of course, continue the SDA and HIDB policies of withdrawing in favour of private sector provision wherever that is practicable and sensible.

1037
I found it a great attraction as an initial step in the SDA's approach that the enteprise companies should operate within spending limits that would enable them to take responsibility for the great majority of projects, and that responsibility for major projects outside those limits should he retained at the centre. I intend to apply that principle to both Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I intend also that the extent of delegation to local enterprise companies should be increased progressively.
The central bodies will have a strong strategic role and will therefore set the policy framework and monitor the local companies; design, develop and secure the implementation of projects and programmes, particularly in industry and enterprise development with an applicability across their areas; approve major projects that fall out with the companies' competence; and handle certain functional activities including major investments, inward investment attracted by Locate in Scotland, marketing and the design and implementation of major physical programmes. They will ensure that the Government's Great Britain-wide training policies and priorities are pursued and Government guarantees fully satisfied. They will also ensure that programmes in support of enterprise delivered on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry are being satisfactorily discharged and provide central support services.
Local enterprise companies will have the following functions, depending on their capability and the spending limits agreed. In the Scottish Enteprise area, large and strategic projects apart, they will have SDA functions in respect of the development of property, land reclamation and environmental improvement projects, advice and assistance to business, and urban renewal. In the highlands and islands area, the same approach will apply to the range of HIDB functions. In both areas they will carry out the range of training functions presently delivered by the Training Agency's area offices and seek to stimulate greater involvement by employers in training. They will also have the scope to devise specific initiatives to meet local needs.
There will be differences in approach between the Scottish Enterprise area and the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area, reflecting their different population, geographical and other characteristics, but there will be an underlying consistency. I have asked officials to work up proposals to ensure that there is a clear framework within which the local enterprise companies are to operate, and that the companies have maximum flexibility, compatible with public accountability, to tailor their activities to local circumstances.
In the light of the comments received on two of the programmes at the interface between industry and education, I have concluded that the Training Agency's technical and vocational education initiative—TVEI—should now move to the Industry Department for Scotland and that PICKUP, the professional, industrial and commercial updating programme administered by the Scottish Education Department, should transfer to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
The resources for the new bodies will initially be broadly those that would have been made available in total to the SDA, HIDB and the Training Agency in Scotland.
Turning now to management, many have suggested that an increase to 12 for the Scottish Enterprise board would offer considerably more scope, while retaining the
1038
efficiency advantages of a compact board. I propose a board of not less than nine and not more than 12 members inclusive of the chairman and the chief executive, who will be an ex officio member. I propose a similar approach to Highlands and Islands Enterprise but, in recognition of the fact that the number of those able to serve will be circumscribed by distance and sparsity of population, I propose a 7:12 formulation. There is broad support for our proposals that two thirds of the board should be drawn from the private sector and members of both boards will be chosen on a personal basis, for the contribution that each can make. We need the best people in their own right.
With regard to the boards of the local enterprise companies, we shall wish to see directors chosen for their individual contribution, reflecting the range of local interests. Two thirds will come from the private sector, and there will be a board of not fewer than nine or more than 12 in the Scottish Enterprise area and between seven and 12 in the Highlands and Islands.
However, the bigger the range of local interest that supports the company the better. I have been pleased by the enthusiasm expressed by the local authority sector, by education and training specialists, the voluntary sector and the trade unions for the objectives of Scottish Enterprise and their desire to be involved.
As regards staffing, it is important that staff are given a clear indication about their future. There are three aims to be fulfilled: Scottish Enterprise should have a single ethos and staffing structure, as should Highlands and Islands Enterprise; local enterprise companies should have as much freedom as possible to choose their own staff; and the arrangements should meet the best interests of existing staff.
I therefore propose that every member of staff employed by the Scottish Development Agency should be offered, three months before the establishment of Scottish Enterprise, employment on no worse terms with Scottish Enterprise, with scope for voluntary secondment to an enterprise company. I propose a similar approach for HIDB staff, As regards the training agency, every member of staff employed in Scotland should be offered, three months before the establishment of the new bodies, the choice either of employment on no worse terms with Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise as appropriate, with scope for voluntary secondment to an enterprise company, or alternatively of secondment to Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise, with up to three years to decide whether to transfer on the same basis permanently or to return to Civil Service. I am sure that the local enterprise companies will recognise the value of taking most of their staff on secondment terms from the skilled and experienced pool of existing staff, but they will also have scope to employ their own staff.
Finally, let me say how I now see the way ahead. I shall seek an early opportunity for legislation to bring Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise into being as soon as possible. As there is overwhelming enthusiasm for our suggestion that it might be possible to go ahead with some local enterprise companies in advance of legislation, within the next few weeks I shall be launching a prospectus which will invite the business community to form consortia to bid to become local enterprise companies in lowland Scotland. That will be followed by a prospectus for the highlands and islands. The companies will operate within existing legislative

1039
powers and within existing public expenditure provision. The number of consortia to be given the go-ahead at this time will depend upon the quality of bids. Consortia throughout Scotland are already making plans in the hope that the Government will take this approach. Their commitment has been a major factor in confirming to me the fact that our proposals for Scottish Enterprise are soundly based.
It gives me great pleasure to commend to the House these proposals, which have caught the imagination of the people of Scotland.
Mr. Donald Dewar: That statement might be described as hard going; it reminded me of stirring very thick porridge. The rather natty, glossy brochure containing the Secretary of State's statement also contains a photograph of the right hon. and learned Gentleman with the legend "The way ahead is clear". He could have fooled all of us this afternoon.
I accept that the statement contains important issues and deals with a part of our economy in which there is no doubt about the scope for improved performance. But as the Minister knows, Opposition Members have doubts about the structure of Scottish Enterprise and the decision to merge training and the key role of the SDA in one body.
Let me make it clear to the House that those doubts remain, but there is some evidence in the Minister's statement—if one reads it carefully—that he has listened, and it would be churlish not to acknowledge that. We will, however, want to be satisfied that the role of Scottish Enterprise will not blur or blunt the enterprise and investment role pioneered by the SDA in recent years. If the Government press ahead, it will be important to ensure that the enterprise companies are a success and bring about the revolution in training that is so clearly needed. We should certainly want to see that achieved.
It is right that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has agreed that Highlands and Islands Enterprise should be created on the lines outlined and that the environmental role should be transferred to it from the SDA.
I welcome the guarantees given to the staff who, I suspect, will nevertheless face an uncertain period in the months ahead.
I have one or two specific questions. The new boards are to be based on private sector involvement, and I note the Secretary of State's statement that there is "broad support" for that principle. I suspect that that is largely confined to the private sector itself. We now know that two thirds of the board directors are to come from private industry. Does the Secretary of State accept that there is real and understandable concern about the involvement of other interests? Does he accept that there is a genuine role both for local authorities and for trade unions? I note that there were some nods in that direction in his statement, but will he undertake that the participation of those other sectors will be a key factor in deciding on the suitability of a bid?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman note in passing the distinction between local authority involvement as such and simply the recruitment of a local authority figure to give colour to a board? Will board members be salaried, as recommended by the SDA in its representations? Will he also say more about the realities of the power structure? We understand that Scottish
1040
Enterprise will monitor the activities of the enterprise companies locally. Will they be allowed to take over the assets and investments of the SDA and Scottish Enterprise, as it will become, as the consortium bidding for the Lanarkshire franchise has requested?
I understand that there will be a delegation of projects to the enterprise companies below a certain cut-off point. What will that be? Will it be roughly along the lines presently operated for the regional bodies of the SDA? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also comment on the level of independence in policy making that will he given to Scottish Enterprise?
In defining the new body's duties, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it will
"ensure that the Government's Great Britain-wide training policies and priorities are pursued and Government guarantees fully satisfied".
Does that mean that the Department of Employment, as the lead body, will lay down all training policy? Will the local enterprise companies—I believe that this is very important—be able to tailor employment training and YTS to local needs? Without that flexibility, many people will think that all the talk about the practical devolution of power is no more than a sham.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain the remit of the national training task force and how it impacts on Scottish Enterprise, reporting, as it does, to the Department of Employment? Will he accept that the test will be what is delivered? We strongly support a Scottish solution to training policy, but we are not convinced that the independence of action that is required has been wrested from the Department of Employment by those plans. There must also be a willingness to fund innovation and local initiatives. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really believe that the present standstill budget, simply amalgamating the existing budgets, can do the job?
Mr. Rifkind: If my statement was a hard slog, the contribution of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was a forced march. Nevertheless, I welcome the generally constructive tone of the hon. Gentleman's comments, and I will respond to his points.
I am happy to confirm that we see a genuine role for local authorities and trade unions; I referred to that specifically in my statement. We hope in the generality that salaries would not be required by the members of the boards in question, but there may be particular circumstances in which some flexibility would be appropriate, and we will consider them on their merits.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked whether the enterprise companies would own the assets currently owned by the SDA in their localities. We certainly envisage that they will be able to have effective control of those assets. Whether the legal ownership should transfer to them is a more difficult matter, which we are considering at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman asked what would be the cut-off point for delegation to the local enterprise companies. I can confirm that that would be broadly compatible with the existing delegation that the SDA gives its regional offices. He asked whether the Department of Employment would be laying down policy on national training. The Government will lay down the policy and the Department of Employment and the Scottish Office will together determine the national framework of training policy. The national task force, to which the hon. Gentleman referred,

1041
answers both to the Department of Employment and to the Scottish Office in its advisory role. We certainly envisage that the local enterprise companies should have a significant flexibility and autonomy within their frameworks.
It would appear that the only major difference remaining between the Opposition and the Government is over the fundamental question as to whether the SDA and the Training Agency should be merged into a single body. The hon. Gentleman said that he has doubts about that structure and he said today, as he has said on a previous occasion, that the Labour party would prefer two free-standing bodies in Scotland instead of a single agency. He is in very lonely company in respect of that view.
The House might like to know that 297 respondents to the White Paper favoured a combination of the SDA and the Training Agency into a single agency and only 17, including the Labour party, expressed the view which the hon. Member for Garscadden has professed today. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will agree that, although he is entitled to his view, it is not shared by Scotland. The overwhelming response from right across the industrial, political and economic spectrum in Scotland supports the Government's proposition and disagrees with the view that was expressed on behalf of the Labour party.
Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) found it difficult to criticise his first statement and finds it impossible to criticise his second? I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on spelling out in detail the Scottish Enterprise proposals which will be warmly welcomed in Scotland. What does he envisage as the role of enterprise trusts? There is considerable scope for enterprise trusts to continue their excellent work under Scottish Enterprise. Will my right hon. and learned Friend say how they will work?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I certainly see a continuing role for enterprise trusts. As my hon. Friend will be aware, they essentially deal with much smaller localities, rather than the larger geographical areas that are covered by enterprise companies. I have no doubt that the enterprise trusts, as they have already publicly said, will wish to be involved in encouraging local consortia to come forward, and be involved in other ways in continuing to stimulate the local economy in the constructive way that they have already demonstrated.
Mr. Tom Clarke: May I ask a constituency question first? As it is not clear what local enterprise companies Strathkelvin district council may be associated with, will the Secretary of State clarify the matter? Secondly, as the Secretary of State referred to the halcyon days when he arrived at St. Andrew's house as a young Minister, pro-devolution and all the rest, he might recall that, at about that time, there was a committee called the Stodart committee, of which I was a member. Based on the evidence that it received, it strongly supported the role of local government in industrial promotion and enterprise.
Has the Secretary of State received any evidence to the contrary? Does he accept that many local authorities in Scotland, including Monklands district council, feel that they have a contribution to make, that the Government are deliberately ostracising that contribution, that that is
1042
not in the interests of Scottish Enterprise or Scottish industry, and that the Stodart committee could have told the Government so?
Mr. Rifkind: On the two points that the hon. Gentleman has raised, first, Strathkelvin district council would come under the proposed Dumbarton enterprise company, and that is made clear on the map that is available to hon. Members. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, his comment is not fair. He will recall that, in the allocations that we gave local authorities for the current year, there was a particularly generous increase in the general services allocation for the purposes of industrial workshops in their areas. If that was not a recognition of the contribution that can be made in matters referring to the local economy, it is difficult to know what would be.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement for the very constructive and full way in which he has responded to the representations that he has received. Will he say a little more about training? Does he acknowledge that there is not only a shortage of skills but a need for new skills in Scotland and that, in the midst of all the new business enterprise, the importance of training should be given a high priority? Is my right hon. and learned Friend getting a constructive response from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Trades Union Congress for his efforts?
Mr. Rifkind: Clearly, training is important. There are clear signs from the STUC and from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that, despite their original proposals to boycott the new training scheme that was introduced by the Government, they will seek to become involved in the enterprise companies, in the knowledge that that will involve co-operation in the delivery of training on the basis of the Government's current training policy. I welcome what appears to be a change of heart in that respect.
Sir Russell Johnston: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that both his statements have been incredibly long-winded? It appears that he has a future as a speaking clock, because the enormity of the statements was barely concealed by the rapidity of his delivery.
I ask two questions. First, on the availability of business men to serve on the boards that are to be established, is he satisfied that there are enough competent people to go around and to make them work properly? Secondly, on Highlands and Islands Enterprise, is he satisfied that the differential that can now be provided is sufficient to make the area genuinely attractive to industry?
Mr. Rifkind: The speaking clock is universally recognised as both accurate and of great public benefit, so I am happy to be compared with it, if the hon. Gentleman chooses to do so.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's detailed questions, the original concern or scepticism of some people about whether the business community would come forward has been completely overtaken by the evidence now available to us. Even in anticipation of the statement, consortia throughout Scotland were already being formed with a view to coming forward as soon as the Government invite them to do so. That is extremely encouraging. The new

1043
opportunities available in the highlands and islands where, for the first time, training will be controlled locally by the Highlands and Islands Enterprise and local enterprise companies, are a dramatic change in the opportunity for the north of Scotland to control its own destiny.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his excellent statement this afternoon, even if it was a little complicated and long for the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) to understand before he fell asleep? Will he note that the new Perthshire enterprise venture set up with such enthusiasm in a partnership between private and public enterprise is an example of what his policies are achieving? Will he remind the House again this afternoon, and unceasingly, that these excellent advantages can be maintained only if we do not drive away investment—from wherever it comes—by having an Assembly, separation or differential taxation?
Mr. Rifkind: I certainly congratulate the Perthshire venture. It is an excellent example of the local business community and others coming together to help the local economy, and it is to be welcomed. My hon. and learned Friend's remarks are also correct. Clearly, anything that discourages investment is to be deplored and my earlier statement today on business rates will be another way in which the potential disincentive of higher taxation will be removed, to the benefit of our economy.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Exactly what will happen to the Dundee project, which is the only example in Scotland of a one-door approach to incoming industry within this new framework? It would be an absolute disaster if the project were simply absorbed into Tayside. How many of the 297 responses to the White Paper did not suggest that an emphasis different from the national emphasis on training was needed in Scotland, particularly given the experience of the previous mode B young people who find it extremely difficult to stay in training employment as it is presently structured?
Mr. Rifkind: I, too, am happy to acknowledge the great importance of the Dundee project. I sought to make it clear in my opening remarks that, apart from the matters delegated to individual enterprise companies, certain projects would continue to be dealt with by Scottish Enterprise, either because of their national significance or because of the size of the resources involved or the scale of the project. We shall consider existing projects and decide which should be in that category. Dundee may be one, but I should not like to come to a conclusion on that without studying the scale of the resources involved and other matters.
On the hon. Gentleman's final point, the 297 representations on the White Paper were about the basic question whether the Scottish Development Agency and the Training Agency should combine into a single agency. Two hundred and ninety-seven said that they should, and 17 said that they should not.
Mr. Adam Ingram: The Secretary of State said that his announcement would catch the imagination of the people of Scotland, but that will not be the case in the new towns in Scotland. Two weeks ago, the Secretary of State announced his intentions about the
1044
future of the new towns. It will be a matter of some concern in the new towns that no mention was made today of the relationship or the role of the new towns in these new enterprise agencies. Will the Secretary of State explain how the new towns will interface with the new enterprise agencies? Which body will have responsibility for the on-going development of the new towns prior to the dissolution of the development corporation boards?
Mr. Rifkind: I am sorry, but I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that the proposals have not caught the imagination of the people in the new towns, because as far as I am aware they have been welcomed there as well. With regard to the precise implications—[Interruption.] I am talking about the responses to the White Paper. On the precise implications, the new towns and their successor local development companies may seek to join a local enterprise company as participants in a consortium, or may act as sub-contractors to local enterprise companies to provide specific local economic development services or, at the instance of Locate in Scotland, they may contract with Scottish Enterprise direct to provide sites for inward investment. Therefore, there are equally exciting and important opportunities for the new towns as well as for the rest of Scotland.
Mr. Mike Watson: Does it not make a mockery of the so-called consultation process when, as the Secretary of State has said, after several hundred responses, it is clear that many of them have been ignored, and when he confirms that the boards of the local enterprise companies—as we hear they will now be called—are to comprise two thirds private sector nominees? Is it not far more important that the recommendations that were made in many of the responses to the consultation process, calling for local authorities, trade unions and the voluntary sector to be involved, should have been taken on board, and should that not happen before a Bill is brought to the House? I noticed that the Secretary of State referred to the general role of trade unions and local authorities, but will he spell out what that will mean, because I fear that that role will be woefully inadequate?
Mr. Rifkind: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. There has been a wide welcome for the principle that local enterprise companies should have boards with two thirds of the members drawn from the private sector. That has not been a matter of controversy. The overwhelming number of representations received has supported that view. There has also been the view, which the Government have also accepted, that local authorities have a legitimate role to play in the enterprise companies. My statement acknowledged that point. I expect that, when consortia approach Scottish Enterprise in most of Scotland, they will come primarily from the private sector, but I shall be surprised if they do not also include local authorities, the voluntary sector and possibly trade unions and others.
Mr. William McKelvey: Will the Secretary of State take steps to ensure that the mangement boards are not loaded in the same fashion as the health boards in Scotland have been loaded with Conservative or former Conservative supporters? Will he guarantee that a maximum will be set so that only two thirds of the management boards will be drawn from the private sector? I hope that the members of the

1045
management boards who are drawn from the private sector will he Scottish business men who live and work in Scotland.
On the point about the area enterprise boards overseeing certain projects, what would the Secretary of State consider to be a large project that would not necessarily be in their domain? Can he guarantee—I should welcome the formation of the enterprise areas a little less cautiously if he could do this—that the Cinderellas who have suffered under the redistribution of SDA grants and moneys before, such as Kilmarnock, will no longer fail to receive their fair share of the budget that is available centrally?
There should be two separate training bodies. One reason why we want a separate body for training is to ensure that training is properly carried out and, most importantly, that the business men who so anxiously want to manage these enterprises have the opportunity to play their part in what should be proper training. Furthermore, those who are training should be paid the appropriate trade union rates.
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that industry should be prepared to make its contribution to the cost of training. That is something that one hopes that industry will acknowledge and to which it will respond. On the hon. Gentleman's point about the membership of the boards of the enterprise companies, I agree that what we are looking for are senior figures from Scottish industry who will he able to make a major contribution to the work of the enterprise companies in their locality.
The hon. Gentleman asked for an example of a project which, despite its local impact, might be considered more suitable to be retained for central control. The Glasgow garden festival is an example. If the festival had been coming into existence under the future structure, although its impact was intended to be within Glasgow, the scale of the project would have justified its being dealt with by Scottish Enterprise rather than by individual enterprise companies. We shall have to consider individual projects and determine that issue on the basis of such criteria.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Yes, but why has the Secretary of State maintained the two-thirds business majority on the boards against calls for a genuine partnership between the public and private sectors, especially when those calls have come not just from every Opposition party but also from the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. and from Mr. Ron Lander, the chairman of the CBI's training committee in Scotland? Does not the fact that the Secretary of State has maintained the two-thirds majority betray the political bias behind the plans and show that they are a Tory solution to Tory needs rather than a Scottish solution to Scottish needs?
Why did the statement make no mention of the European dimension? Is it not the case that the Department of Employment processes applications for the European social fund, which is a major provider of training funding? Why has that role not been delegated to the Scottish Office or Scottish Enterprise? In the light of the Secretary of State's earlier remarks about the relative positions of the Scottish Office and the Department of Employment in relation to training, does he not remember
1046
that the White Paper announcing these proposals described the Department of Employment as the lead Department in these matters? Has anything changed?
Mr. Rifkind: It was described as the lead Department because it is the lead Department. There has never been any secret of that fact. It would be odd if it were not the lead Department, given that it covers such a large proportion of the population of the Unied Kingdom. This is not the occasion to have a debate on European matters, but I believe that my statement is free-standing in its own right.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's initial points, I advise him that he should study the representations before he makes a slight fool of himself——
Mr. Salmond: I have the submissions here.
Mr. Rifkind: In that case, the hon. Gentleman has even less excuse for the questions that he has asked—[Interruption.] Yes, indeed, but the two-thirds private sector ratio has been widely accepted right across the spectrum of opinion. What people were quite properly——
Mr. Salmond: What about Mr. Ron Lander?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman refers to one individual, as if one individual out of 420 should determine the course of the Government's response——
Mr. Salmond: Mr. Lander is the chairman of the CBI's education and training committee.
Mr. Rifkind: Well, the CBI strongly supports what is in the White Paper. The fact that the hon. Gentleman has identified one individual who takes a different view shows the paucity of his case. The balance that the Government are proposing in the White Paper has been welcomed right across the political and industrial spectrum. The hon. Gentleman may not like that, but I am afraid that he will have to live with it.
Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the Secretary of State return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), and will he undertake to write to the chief executives or the chairman of the Scottish new town development corporations setting out in some detail the precise relationship between what is proposed and the existing development corporations? Could he then go a little further and deal with the question of the new development companies so that there is absolutely no doubt about the role of the new towns in the new context?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, we will happily give such advice to the new town development corporations. The answer that I gave the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) related both to the existing new town development corporations and to the future local enterprise companies. We shall happily discuss the matter with the new towns so that there is a clarity of understanding about this matter.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: If I followed the Secretary of State's statement correctly, he suggested that, as well as its training function, Highlands and Islands Enterprise will take on the environmental function from the SDA. Will he give an absolute guarantee that it will have a requisite increase in its finances for both those functions, so that its prime and legislative

1047
development role is not undermined or diluted as a result of the greater range of activity that it will have to undertake?
Secondly, I stress to the Secretary of State that at the weekend my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), in anticipation of this week's statement, met representatives of the CBI in the highlands and islands of Scotland. [Interruption.] I assure hon. Members that it was a perfectly open meeting. Those representatives of the CBI were exactly the kind of business men to whom the Secretary of State will be looking to make this a success. One issue about which they were anxious was whether this would lead to a diminution in the almost unique status of the existing HIDB within Scotland, as it is brought more on a par with Scottish Enterprise generally, and whether the potential is there for this to be a long-term disincentive or disadvantage for the highlands and islands as a whole. Will the Secretary of State address himself to that, too?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes. We have said that the initial funding of both the new agencies would correspond to the funding that currently goes to the various bodies that deal with those matters. In the case of the highlands and islands, if one combines, for example, the existing funding of the HIDB with that of the Training Agency in Scotland, we are talking of funding of about £50 million. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the environmental aspect. We essentially wish to start from the position of replicating the existing funding in the highlands, wherever it comes from, and that will go to Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I believe that he can be greatly reassured, because, far from being to the disadvantage of the highlands and islands, we are saying that major areas of policy and resources, which up to now have been carried out within the highlands from outside, will in future be determined within the highlands and islands themselves. For the first time, Highlands and Islands Enterprise will have many millions of pounds to spend on training in the highlands and islands—training which up to now has been run from Sheffield. That will now be with the local enterprise companies. There is the point, too, about the environmental functions of the SDA now being controlled from Inverness rather than from Glasgow. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can properly recognise what is being proposed as an exciting and substantial decentralisation of power to the highlands and islands.
Mr. John McAllion: The Secretary of State has tried hard to give the impression this afternoon of an entirely Scottish approach to the important area of training. Will he tell us whether the Department of Employment will continue to have a remit for training provision in Scotland, and, especially, whether the pilot schemes for the workfare-type jobs interview guarantee scheme will continue to go ahead under the Department of Employment, or whether it will be transferred to Scottish Enterprise? In any case, whoever has responsibility, will the Secretary of State guarantee that there will be comprehensive consultation with the local communities before implementation of that scheme?
Mr. Rifkind: There will be relatively few residual functions of the Department of Employment in Scotland,
1048
but, overwhelmingly, its current responsibilities are being transferred, with the appropriate resources, to the Scottish Office. There will be a continuing joint responsibility for national training standards in the United Kingdom as a whole, where both Departments will liaise in order to identify Government policy. Within that national framework, we accept that, both at Scottish level and in the various parts of Scotland, there will be substantial flexibility and local autonomy that has not existed up to now and will be a major feature of future arrangements.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the Secretary of State understand that these are very wide powers, which have been given to a very small number of people, drawn from a very narrow band of Scottish society, over a wide area of Scottish society and highly unrepresentative of Scottish society? That in itself requires the most extensive debate. The Secretary of State mentioned public accountability, but to whom will those local enterprise companies be publicly accountable? Will it be the local authority or the Scottish Office and, through the Scottish Office, the House? The Secretary of State did not mention Locate in Scotland, possibly because nothing is happening in relation to it. I would be grateful if he could confirm that. Finally, if legislation is required—when?
Mr. Rifkind: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's points in reverse order. My statement said that I envisaged early legislation to create Scottish Enterprise. However, even in advance of that legislation, much will be able to be achieved under the existing statutory position.
I am happy to confirm that Locate in Scotland is not affected in any way by the statement. Enterprise companies will be accountable to Scottish Enterprise in the first instance and, through Scottish Enterprise, to the Scottish Office and thereby to Parliament as a whole.
The hon. Gentleman said that those powers will be used by unrepresentative individuals. I ask him to compare what we propose with the existing situation and to see which he prefers. At the moment, the training powers are carried out by people answerable to the Training Agency's headquarters in Sheffield, while the SDA powers are exercised by officials of the SDA in the localities in question and are rarely considered in any depth by SDA headquarters. Compared with the status quo arrangements, a local enterprise company, which consists both of the private sector, and I am sure of local authorities and other local interests, will be considerably more representative and able to identify the needs of the local community than the existing arrangements, which, of course, have existed for a good many years.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that one of the intriguing aspects of discussing this initially with Bill Hughes was the fact that he suggested that money should be taken down to the local level? What appears to be happening is that we are creating multifarious bureaucracies. The real danger is that money, especially for training, will not get down to local level. How does he propose to devise a mechanism to obviate that?
Will the Secretary of State give us some indication of how those local companies will be registered? Will they be companies registered by guarantee, and will we, additionally, have an annual report on Scottish Enterprise and on Highlands and Islands Enterprise, too, so that we

1049
might have an opportunity of discussing those matters, appropriately in Scotland? One thing that we should keep an eye on and ventilate in Scotland is this proposed set-up.
Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to pay credit to Mr. Hughes for the stimulation that he, as well as others, gave to these ideas. These proposals represent a massive transfer of resources to the local level. At the moment, the effective decision on training are taken in Sheffield and those on the functions of the SDA in Glasgow. We are proposing a contractual relationship with enterprise companies, which have been brought out by the local communities, where they will not be carrying out simply a policy laid down by Government as agents. We would clearly not attract people of calibre to carry out someone else's policy. They will be given real decision-making powers in important areas, which is why the business sector and others have already responded so enthusiastically to what is proposed. I agree that those matters should be debated and discussed, for which there will be many opportunities. What is encouraging is that the public response to the White Paper has given rise not only to so many comments from so many quarters, but such a unanimous endorsement of what is proposed.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: When does the Secretary of State expect Scottish Enterprise to achieve a reduction in Scottish unemployment to the level which existed at the time when the Scottish Development Agency was set up by the last Labour Government?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, after the SDA was set up by the last Labour Government, unemployment—no doubt for other reasons—substantially increased during the remaining period of that Labour Government. It increased further during the early years of this Government, but I am pleased to say that it has been dramatically falling over the past two years and looks set to continue to fall. The Scottish CBI's latest survey shows substantial optimism in Scottish industry. No doubt that is because of a clear realisation that the hon. Gentleman is unlikely to be sitting on this side of the House in the foreseeable future.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that Scotland has a unique history of skill training—that, certainly during the industrial revolution and afterwards, Scotland led the world in its level of skill training. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that this new training arrangement will allow training to be conducted in such a manner that, if one wished, one could extend the training period to three years or more to give the opportunities for the levels of skills that are required to meet the needs of the future?
Mr. Rifkind: We certainly envisage that, increasingly, Government requirements will not be expressed so much in terms of the procedure and the detailed way in which training is delivered, as in terms of output and the results. If we are satisfied that enterprise companies are producing the results, the out-turn and the quality of training that is required, we shall be happy for them to have a significant flexibility and autonomy as to how they do that throughout Scotland.

Points of Order
4.59 pm
Mr. Barry Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether you have received any requests from Ministers to make a statement on the salmonella outbreak in Clwyd? There is considerable anxiety on Deeside and throughout that county. I believe that, before the end of the day, a statement should he made on this serious outbreak. We need to know whether the outbreak has affected 48 people in Clwyd, whether there are 13 hospital cases, whether there is a seriously ill pensioner and whether children are affected—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The point of order is to me and to ask whether I have received a request for a statement. The hon. Member should not go into detail. I must tell him that I have not had such a request.
Mr. Jones: I was about to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is widespread anxiety in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies. We want to know whether there are enough environmental health officers to assist locate the seat of the outbreak. We urgently want to know from Ministers what the Government are doing so that public anxiety can be allayed. Can you help to establish whether a Minister from the Welsh Office will come to the Chamber and make a statement about this serious outbreak of salmonella? Public opinion demands that that information be given.
Mr. Speaker: I repeat that I have not had any request for such a statement. I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard on the Government Front Bench. We never know what might happen tomorrow.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard the Secretary of State for Health during Question Time yesterday make some insulting remarks that implied that my constituents are not fit to vote on whether they want hospitals to opt out of the National Health Service. Would you examine the record, Mr. Speaker, and consider asking the Secretary of State for Health to withdraw those deeply offensive remarks?
Mr. Speaker: I must tell the hon. Lady that I was here and I did not hear any offensive remarks. In any case, the time to raise a point of order on a matter like that is when it occurred, not now. I cannot go back to it today.
Mrs. Mahon: Further to the point of order—
Mr. Speaker: No—I am sorry, the hon. Lady's argument is not with me. She will have to find other ways to take it up.
Mrs. Mahon: Further—
Mr. Speaker: No. I cannot hear it.

Points of Order
  BILLS PRESENTED

    NUTRITIONAL LABELLING OF FOOD
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths, supported by Ms. Diane Abbott, Ms. Joan Walley, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Andrew Smith and Mr. Peter L. Pike, presented a Bill to ensure that the consumer is provided with full and accurate information

    1051
    on the nutritional content of food: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October and to be printed. [Bill 200.]

    ANTI-LITTER (RING-PULL CANS)
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths, supported by Ms. Diane Abbott, Ms. Joan Walley, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Andrew Smith and Mr. Peter L. Pike, presented a Bill to require the manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers of ring-pull cans to ensure that the ring-pull cannot be detached when the can is opened: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October and to be printed. [Bill 201.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Recording Equipment) Regulations 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Industrial Disputes (Compulsory Arbitration Procedures)
5.2 pm
Mr. Roger Knapman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to compel parties providing essential services and involved in industrial disputes to seek arbitration.
The aims of this Bill are best attained by preventing those who are engaged in providing essential services from undertaking strike action, either on a full-time or part-time basis, while recourse to existing arbitration or tribunal procedures remain available to the parties to the dispute. This is certainly not a bash-the-unions exercise, but it is very much a protect-the-public measure.
We have come a long way since the days of Red Robbo and Jack Dash—the days of "I'm all right Jack"—and of scenes in factory car parks which involved a brief speech, a forest of hands in the air, and an immediate walk-out. Few doubt that such antics played a significant role in Britain's relative decline as an industrial power in the 1960s and 1970s. They certainly played a large part in the perceptions that many foreigners—including potential investors—formed of Britain's economic performance.
Few people would want those dark days to return. Even fewer would agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who said on June 19 this year:
"The Trade Union was born in illegality and it will be re-born in illegality".
At present, some groups, such as members of the police forces and the armed forces have no right to strike. Also, doctors, dentists and nurses have their pay settled by review bodies, although there must be some concern about the inflationary aspects of some of the awards.
I was encouraged by the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr. Bendall), who is in his place, last Thursday. She said:
"We are looking at the possibility of further legislation and examining European legislation which usually includes some protection against unions in the public sector going on strike. European legislation and history tend to be very different from ours, but we are looking at it all to see whether we can learn something from it. … With due respect, I do not think that it would make much difference to have only one union. It is much more complicated than that, but I hope to bring forward in the future any proposals that we may have."—[Official Report, 20 July 1989; Vol. 157, c. 514.]
I am quite sure that any such proposals will be positive and realistic and will build on the substantial trade union reforms over the past decade, which have met with the approval of the vast majority of the British electorate. One effect of these proposals is that strike action is legal only after a democratic ballot. It logically follows that, where trade union members have authorised strike action, there is greater legitimacy for them to do so.
I suggest that it is for the employers and the unions to decide whether they want to accept the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service, either as an arbitrator or as a conciliator, and whether to accept pendulum arbitration or no-strike deals.
There has been much comment recently on the negotiation of no-strike deals, which typically involve single union deals, such as that between the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union and Japanese new technology companies, often on new green-field sites. The agreements prohibit industrial action

1053
while the disputes procedure is being followed. If the agreed procedures fail to resolve the dispute, an independent arbitrator, sometimes ACAS, either must or may be called upon to make a final decision.
Some agreements specify the use of pendulum arbitration, whereby the arbitrator must choose between the employer's offer and the union's demand rather than strike a compromise between the two.
any industrial relations experts point out that there is not much difference between a no-strike agreement and the type of collective agreements involving peace clauses and provision for arbitration which have been negotiated in many industries in the past.
Perhaps the present situation is best summarised by a recent article on single-union deals in the Industrial Relations Review and Report dated 27 June 1989. It said:
"There is nothing new about peace clauses or disputes procedures which set out the steps through which disputes and grievances must proceed".
It continued by analysing the 1984 workplace industrial relations survey and found that nearly 80 per cent. of unionised workplaces had such arrangements. In many cases, these arrangements are specifically referred to as procedures for the avoidance of disputes.
It is difficult to see why the public should be inconvenienced where these procedures are adopted. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said in a television interview on 11 December 1974:
"naturally the trade unions see their clearest loyalty to their own members but the social contract is their free acknowledgement that they have other loyalties to the members of other unions, to pensioners, to the lower paid, to invalids and to the community as a whole".
It is interesting that loyalty to the community as a whole came last. The convenience and needs of the public always seem to come last during industrial disputes. I suggest that it is the duty of the House to ensure that the needs of the public come not last, but first in order of priority.
Like other hon. Members, I have recently received a letter from the secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen that stated, in its second paragraph:
"I am only too well aware of the considerable inconvenience caused to the travelling public by the current industrial problems so let me begin by emphasising once again that the NUR is anxious to achieve the earliest settlement of the dispute".
Later in the same letter comes the statement:
"We have consistently argued that ACAS is the necessary and appropriate forum for such negotiations".
What that letter does not, and cannot, explain is why it is necessary to have a strike, such as the one today, while both the tribunal and ACAS procedures are still available to the parties concerned. As my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State observed on 30 June:
"Use the established procedures if you are so keen for a settlement—start talking and now. The British public is waiting."
I am well aware that other countries have different approaches to these problems. As Mr. Philip Bassett observed in the Financial Times as long ago as 2 January 1986:
"In West Germany … it is illegal not only to break an agreement, but also to encourage others to do so. In the US, all agreements are legally enforceable and most contain elaborate grievance procedures and no-strike peace clauses. In France agreements are enforceable as civil contracts."
Until major legislation is introduced—that was mentioned in our 1983 manifesto—and until our position on those major issues is made clear, we surely cannot continue to allow the public to be blackmailed. The man
1054
or woman on the tube, on the railway or, quite literally, on the Clapham omnibus, should not face strike action until all procedures to avoid such strikes have been exhausted. Some 80 per cent. of unionised workplaces already have peace clauses for disputes procedures. The very least we should ensure is that those engaged in providing essential public services should not strike before such procedures have been fully explored. It is the duty of this House to protect the public.
5.11 pm
Mr. David Winnick: This is yet another attempt by Tory Back Benchers to restrict or take away the right of employees, especially those in the public sector, to take strike action. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) made no reference to the wages of those involved in today's dispute. Even alter an 8·8 per cent. increase, many railway workers would have a basic wage of £116 a week before tax. I note that the hon. Gentleman is a partner in a family firm of builders. He is a member of a Lloyd's underwriting syndicate. He is an associate partner in a firm of chartered surveyors. What income does he take home, and how does it compare with some of the railway workers who take home less than £100 a week, which often includes overtime?
No group of workers takes industrial action lightly, although I do not expect Tory Members to understand that. Some of my hon. Friends take the view that Tory Members are opposed to all forms of strikes. Perhaps that is a slight exaggeration, so I shall make the qualification that they are opposed to all forms of strike action—unless it happens to take place in eastern Europe.
The very powers that the hon. Gentleman advocates were, in fact, part of the emergency provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1971—a very discredited piece of Tory legislation. There was a dispute, as a matter of fact, on the railways in 1972 and strike action was to be taken. The then Secretary of State for Employment applied to the National Industrial Relations Court—we all remember that body—which granted a cooling-off period of 14 days. That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is now advocating.
During those 14 days, the union complained that there was only minimal negotiation with the employers. The Government then ordered a postal ballot of all those eligible to take strike action. Some 85 per cent. of NUR members voted, and of those, 84 per cent. voted in favour of industrial action. The Government, realising that the game was up, authorised British Rail to go beyond the previous offer, and fresh negotiations soon resulted in a satisfactory settlement. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has done his homework and whether he is aware of what happened in 1972. Nevertheless, it demonstrates that what he advocates has already been tried. It could not prevent strike action, and the Government recognised that a further offer was necessary.
The hon. Gentleman is keen on arbitration. Is he aware that there has been arbitration in the Civil Service since the 1920s? Since 1982, however, the Secretary of State has refused the Civil Service unions permission to go to arbitration, always arguing that, as there was no further money on offer, there was no purpose in arbitration.
In a democratic society, the employers and the unions should negotiate for the kind of agreement that they want. The hon. Gentleman referred to various existing

1055
agreements, and that is fine, but it is surely for the employers and the trade unions, as part of the collective bargaining process, to agree on the procedures that they want, whether it be arbitration or something else. ACAS plays an important role, but that role would undoubtedly be discredited if compulsory arbitration was imposed. The current problems do not call for compulsory arbitration; they call for a recognition by the Government that many workers, including those in the constituencies of Tory Members, are deeply dissatisfied with what they take home. That is part of the reason for the large amount of industrial unrest at present, and more so because of the rising inflation rate.
It is no good dismissing those people as troublemakers and anarchists who want only to cause the public the maximum inconvenience. It is nothing of the kind. As I said earlier, no group of working people takes industrial action lightly, and certainly those employed on the railways have not done that. Strikes are part of the price that a society pays for remaining free and democratic—[Interruption.] Tory Members may jeer, but they should remember that in the Soviet Union and Poland, as those societies improve and reforms are undertaken, the working people have resorted to the strike weapon. The only way to end strikes is through a dictatorship. Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin had their ways of dealing with industrial disputes, but in a democratic society people should have the right to take industrial action if they so wish.
What the hon. Gentleman advocates in his Bill, far from resolving industrial unrest, will only further aggravate it. It is all part and parcel of the determination of Tory Members to take away the right to strike action from workers in the public sector. We will oppose the Bill in the Lobby.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 109.

Division No. 322]

[5.17 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Day, Stephen

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Dover, Den

Alton, David

Dykes, Hugh

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Atkinson, David

Favell, Tony

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Fearn, Ronald

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Bendall, Vivian

Fishburn, John Dudley

Bevan, David Gilroy

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gardiner, George

Bowis, John

Gill, Christopher

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Glyn, Dr Alan

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Buck, Sir Antony

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Burns, Simon

Gregory, Conal

Butler, Chris

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hague, William

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hanley, Jeremy

Carttiss, Michael

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

Cash, William

Harris, David

Conway, Derek

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Hill, James

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Holt, Richard

Couchman, James

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Cran, James

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

1056

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Shersby, Michael

Irvine, Michael

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Speller, Tony

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Kennedy, Charles

Stanbrook, Ivor

Kilfedder, James

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Kirkhope, Timothy

Stevens, Lewis

Kirkwood, Archy

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Knapman, Roger

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Latham, Michael

Summerson, Hugo

Lord, Michael

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

McCrindle, Robert

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Maclennan, Robert

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Miller, Sir Hal

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Mills, Iain

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Wallace, James

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Wells, Bowen

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Widdecombe, Ann

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Wiggin, Jerry

Page, Richard

Wilkinson, John

Paisley, Rev Ian

Wolfson, Mark

Pawsey, James

Wood, Timothy

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Porter, David (Waveney)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Tellers for the Ayes:

Riddick, Graham

Mr. Jacques Arnold and Mr. Malcolm Moss.

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Armstrong, Hilary

Hardy, Peter

Ashton, Joe

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Haynes, Frank

Barron, Kevin

Heffer, Eric S.

Battle, John

Hinchliffe, David

Beckett, Margaret

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Bell, Stuart

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Home Robertson, John

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

Hood, Jimmy

Bidwell, Sydney

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Buckley, George J.

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Caborn, Richard

Ingram, Adam

Callaghan, Jim

Janner, Greville

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Leighton, Ron

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Lewis, Terry

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Litherland, Robert

Clelland, David

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Loyden, Eddie

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

McAvoy, Thomas

Corbett, Robin

McGrady, Eddie

Corbyn, Jeremy

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Cousins, Jim

McNamara, Kevin

Cryer, Bob

Madden, Max

Cummings, John

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Darling, Alistair

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Michael, Alun

Dixon, Don

Morgan, Rhodri

Dobson, Frank

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Mowlam, Marjorie

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Mullin, Chris

Eadie, Alexander

Murphy, Paul

Eastham, Ken

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Patchett, Terry

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Pike, Peter L.

Fatchett, Derek

Prescott, John

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Radice, Giles

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

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Flannery, Martin

Richardson, Jo

Flynn, Paul

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Rogers, Allan

Foster, Derek

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Fraser, John

Salmond, Alex

George, Bruce

Short, Clare

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Sillars, Jim

1057

Skinner, Dennis

Wareing, Robert N.

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

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

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

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

Winnick, David

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Soley, Clive

Worthington, Tony

Spearing, Nigel

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Steinberg, Gerry

Stott, Roger

Tellers for the Noes:

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Mr. Ian McCartney and Mr. Tony Banks.

Vaz, Keith

Wall, Pat

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roger Knapman, Sir Bernard Braine, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. William Cash, Mr. James Cran, Mr. Vivian Bendall, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Andrew Hargreaves and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Industrial Disputes (Compulsory Arbitration Procedures)
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (COMPULSORY ARBITRATION PROCURES)
  Mr. Roger Knapman accordingly presented a Bill to compel parties providing essential services and involved in industrial disputes to seek arbitration; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 199].

Points of Order
5.29 pm
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Press Association is reporting that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) has been appointed a Government Whip. He is, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the director of Eversure Textiles Ltd. in Sheffield. The workers a t that plant have been on strike for the past five weeks, seeking trade union recognition, which has been refused by the management and the hon. Member for Hallam.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Madden: It is this. Can you tell the House whether, on appointment as a Government Whip, hon. Members are advised to relinquish directorships?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. The Chair has an enormous number of responsibilities, but the appointment of Government Whips—or the notification of this by the Press Association—is not one of them. We should now proceed to motions Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Madden: On a point of order.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a fresh point of order?
Mr. Madden: Yes. I am grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, but would you go a little further? If it is not within the jurisdiction of the Chair to say whether the hon. Member for Hallam should relinquish his directorship, would you at least say, from your vast knowledge of these matters, that it would be a good idea for him to do so, as that would enable the management and the workers of the company to go to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to secure arbitration and a settlement of this unnecessary dispute?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Flattery about the Chair's responsibility will get the hon. Gentleman nowhere. I am not inclined to make any such statement.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Has any information gone to the Speaker's Office concerning the responsibilities of the Prime Minister, and what exactly they are? In the past 24 hours, our attention has been brought to the fact that she has started letting houses. I am not sure whether that comes within the general ambit of her responsibilities. Will' the Speaker look into this matter to see whether such a role comes under the powers of the First Lord of the Treasury?
I should also like to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been given the right to purchase because he has done this before, and he had a big mortgage. I want to know whether this one will be bigger, and whether Lady Porter is involved.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman of one thing—whatever powers it comes under, it does not come under the powers of the Chair.

Social Security
5.33 pm
The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
That the draft Community Charge Benefits (General) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 21st July, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take the following motions:
That the draft Income Support (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 21st July be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 21st July, be approved.
Mr. Scott: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has, for reasons that he has explained to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), to be elsewhere at the moment, but he hopes to join us later. I hope that my hon. Friends, and the rest of the House, will give a warm welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard), who has joined us in the Department as an Under-Secretary.
The three sets of regulations before the House have the common thread that they all relate to the provision of social security benefits. They do, however, relate to two distinct aspects of benefit provision which I intend to deal with separately. I shall take first the community charge benefits regulations and then come on to the two sets of regulations dealing with the provision of benefits for the unemployed.
The community charge benefits regulations are an integral part of the community charge arrangements. The scheme will ensure that the amount people have to pay will be related to their ability to pay it. People on low income will be able to claim rebates of up to 80 per cent. of their liability, and people on income support will be helped to pay the 20 per cent. of their liability that is not covered by the rebate through the adjustments that have been made to the income support rates. These regulations prescribe the details of how the community charge is to be rebated, and they will apply throughout Great Britain. During the current year, that is April till March 1990, community charge rebates in Scotland are being provided under separate regulations, which will cease to have effect in March next year, and will be replaced by the regulations that we are debating.
The community charge benefit scheme will be operated by levying authorities in Scotland and by charging authorities in England and Wales in accordance with the rules laid down in these regulations. The benefit may be claimed by anybody who is liable either for a personal community charge or for collective community charge contributions. The only people who will not be able to claim benefit will be full-time students who are registered as being liable for only 20 per cent. of the charge.
The maximum rebate will be 80 per cent. of the amount that a person has to pay. This will mean that all charge payers have to pay at least 20 per cent. of the charge in the same way that all ratepayers now have to pay 20 per cent. of their rates. The Government hold firmly to the view that everybody should be as aware of the costs of local authority services as they are of the benefits. The maximum rebate will be available automatically to
1060
everybody who is getting income support, and also to those people on equivalent incomes. We estimate that this 80 per cent. maximum rebate will be awarded to about 6 million people in Great Britain. We also estimate that a further 4 million to 5 million people in Great Britain will get a rebate on the community charge of less than the 80 per cent. maximum. For them, the amount of rebate they get will depend on three factors: their financial resources, their personal circumstances, and the amount of community charge that they have to pay.
The way in which rebate is calculated will follow closely the way in which rate rebate is calculated now. First, the capital resources of claimants will be considered, because we believe that if people have access to a significant amount of capital they should be expected to use it in meeting their necessary expenses. Then their net weekly income will be calculated, and personal circumstances taken into account, using the same applicable amounts, made up of personal allowances and premiums, as are now used in housing benefit. The applicable amount will be subtracted from net weekly income, and the maximum rebate will be reduced by 15 per cent. of this difference. Rebate will be payable only where it is 50p a week more. I hope that the House will welcome the fact that the taper for the community charge rebate scheme is 15 per cent. as opposed to the 20 per cent. taper used in rebating rates. We estimate that about 1 million more people will be brought into rebate because of this.
Our objective in formulating the community charge benefit regulations has been to maintain alignment with the housing benefit regulations wherever practicable. This has a number of advantages, which I hope the House will recognise. It is easier for claimants to understand, and we expect virtually all housing benefit claimants to get community charge benefit, and it is also helpful to the local authorities who will be administering the scheme. It also maintains the overall simplification and alignment of the income-related benefits that we achieved with the 1988 reforms. As well as retaining the same procedures for calculating capital, net weekly income and applicable amounts, we have retained broadly the same procedures for the making of claims, and for determinations, notifications and reviews.
The small number of changes that we have had to introduce are there because rebating an individual liability is not exactly the same as rebating a property-based liability. These changes are most obvious in the case of couples. We have retained the principle that the resources of the two partners in a couple should be considered jointly, so, although in nearly all cases the two partners in a couple will each be liable for the community charge, only one of them will need to claim community charge benefit. Their community charge liabilities will be aggregated, their financial resources will be assessed jointly, and their circumstances will be assessed using their applicable amount as a couple. On this basis, the amount of rebate due to the couple will be calculated, and divided between the two partners.
I wrote to all right hon. and hon. Members at the beginning of May describing the most important aspects of the community charge benefit scheme, and giving some examples of the levels of income at which various categories of claimant could expect to receive a rebate. I do not intend to repeat those examples now, but I should add that we expect about a quarter of all the people who are liable for the charge to benefit from rebates, and in our

1061
view this represents the right balance between providing help for people who need it and ensuring that the taxpayers' money is properly used.
I stress that we do not underestimate the need to ensure that claimants move readily from rate rebates to community charge benefit, and the need to help local authorities in their task of implementing the new scheme. To this end we will be introducing a number of special arrangements to facilitate the introduction of the scheme, and these will be prescribed in the Community Charge Benefits (Transitional) Order 1989, which we intend laying before the House as soon as the benefit regulations come into effect. These transitional provisions are not before the House today, and therefore not the subject of our debate.
In commending the regulations to the House, I should like to make clear the extent of our consultation, since the autumn of 1987, with the local authority associations, and to express my gratitude for their co-operation. We have also formally consulted the associations and the Social Security Advisory Committee. The comments that we received were helpful and constructive, and a large number of them have been incorporated in the regulations before the House.
Most of the provisions in the regulations dealing with the unemployed flow from the powers taken in the Social Security Act 1989. The matter is slightly complicated by the need for two sets of regulations, one for unemployment benefit and the other for income support. I should first point out to hon. Members that there was a printed error in the published version of the Income Support (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1989. This was corrected in the version laid before the House, but Members' copies will be wrong. In new regulation 10A(3) of the general regulations the word "recorded" should have read "regarded". I am very sorry that this error occurred and I hope that it has not caused too much confusion.
I hope that the hon. Member for Derby, South will agree that we had a demanding but rewarding Committee stage which resulted in some important improvements to the Bill. I know that we ended up not being able to see eye to eye on the provisions that have led to these regulations, but during our debates in Committee we gave a number of undertakings as a result of those debates. I hope that those who examine the regulations with an open mind will regard them as evidence of our good faith and of our being prepared to listen to the representations put to us.
The two areas that gave rise to the most concern at earlier stages were the introduction of the new, actively seeking work condition and the new permitted period, which limits the time when an individual may, without a risk to his benefit, decline employment outside his usual occupation. We have repeatedly said that employment service staff will interpret these new provisions in a fair and sensitive way. I am sure that we can be confident of their ability to do that. Employment service staff are already faced daily with individuals from all walks of life, with differing needs, capabilities and expectations. They are constantly called on to use their judgment to ensure that the needs of the individual are accommodated, while the conditions for benefit, as laid down by Parliament, are complied with.
Of course, that presents a challenge. Our new provisions will sometimes increase the demands on these staff, but they give them the tools to do the job properly. I am confident that, in their usual way, and with the
1062
additional training that is to be provided for undertaking this important work, the staff will rise fully to that challenge.
During earlier debates we heard much criticism of the proposal that unemployed claimants should have to seek work actively in return for benefit. Some Opposition Members doubted whether the legislation was necessary to enforce that principle. However, the Bill became the Act, and the appropriate wording is now in place.
The regulations say that an unemployed person must, in any week, take those steps that are reasonable in his case and which offer him his best prospects of employment. That is not unreasonable. However, to ensure that the test is applied in a sensitive and fair way, we have laid down certain things that we think form a vital part of the picture. First, we have given examples of particular matters to which the adjudication officer should have regard in deciding what was reasonable in an individual claimant's case. Some of these are obvious: for example, the claimant's skills, qualifications, abilities, or physical or mental limitations; similarly, how long he has been unemployed, his work experience, what jobs are available and where they are, and what he had done already to seek work. Others may be less obvious, but are none the less important.
One example that came out of our discussions in Committee—a number of Members who served on it are present today—is the effect on job search if a claimant is homeless. Any limitations that that may place on him will be taken into account. The Committee discussions also led us to specify that regard should be had to time spent on particularly worthwhile activities—for example, service as part-time firemen, lifeboatmen or emergency workers, or attendance at outward bound or guide dog training courses. Another group for whom concern was expressed in Committee consisted of those spending time on vocational training or study, on voluntary work or in an employment or training programme. None of these activities will absolve the individual claimant totally from the need to seek work. We believe that that would be wrong. None the less, all these factors can be weighed in considering either the amount of time which is spent in looking for work or the actual steps which the individual claimant could be expected to undertake.
The regulations also give examples of the types of step that a person may take. As we explained at an earlier stage, the list of examples is not exhaustive or exclusive; it is up to the individual claimant to decide how best to go about securing employment in his chosen field. The list suggests the most common ways of seeking work, but any other equally or more meritorious steps will be taken into account.
As I have already said, a claimant will be expected to seek work every week. Currently, most claimants attend the benefit office fortnightly, and that will not change. The way the job search week will work will be, for example, that a person who attends the office on alternate Wednesdays will be expected to satisfy the test for each Thursday to Wednesday period. In this way, we think that claimants will readily understand that the period that they are being asked about is the two weeks ending on the day on which they are being asked to confirm that they are seeking work.
The last point that I want to mention on actively seeking work is an important one. There will be a number of circumstances in which an individual claimant may be

1063
deemed to be actively seeking work for a given week. These include the first and last weeks of unemployment, when it may be unreasonable to expect a person to meet the condition. Similarly, an individual claimant who is away from home may be excused job search for up to two weeks in a year. Of course, he will still have to be available for work, as now, but I think that this is an important concession. It covers an area we discussed in Committee; short periods of absence, perhaps due to family emergency, can be catered for within the normal arrangements. Provided the claimant is available for work, he should have time during the week to undertake some job search to satisfy the condition.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the Minister say something about the level of remuneration that people seeking work may be expected to accept? Last year, one of my constituents who had said that he wanted £80 a week was told that under the then rules he was pricing himself out of the market and would therefore lose benefit. He appealed against that and won, but in this day and age it is ridiculous to expect a married person with a family to go for a job at less than £80 a week.
Mr. Scott: The employment service will not offer jobs at derisory wages. We discussed this in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman may well have read our proceedings. We do not believe that it is the Government's job to lay down what wages should be paid in particular industries or occupations. We believe that the market is the right force to determine that.
Only if someone turns down a job offered him by the employment service will he be at risk of losing benefit for not having had good cause for turning it down.
Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister confirm—he was unable to do so in Committee—that it would be reasonable for people to turn down jobs if the amount the job pays, plus the family credit that they gain, will be less than their benefit received while unemployed?
Mr. Scott: Given the in-work benefits that are available, it would be almost impossible for someone to be worse off in employment than on benefit. Nevertheless, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that there might not be an occasional case when that happens.
Mr. Field: If the Government are so confident about getting it right, why cannot the Minister give a clear assurance that people will not be sent for jobs that will pay them less than what they received in benefit?
Mr. Scott: It is not right for the Government to intervene in that way. There may very well be circumstances in which it would be manifestly for the long-term benefit of an individual to take employment that might offer him less than he was receiving in benefit as it would get him back into employment and enable him in due course substantially to increase those earnings for the benefit of himself and his family. Therefore, it would be wrong for us to introduce the provisions that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Anyone who attends an outward bound course may be deemed to satisfy the condition for up to three weeks. A blind person attending a training course for the use of guide dogs may be deemed to satisfy it for up to four
1064
weeks. We have also arranged to deem as actively seeking work individual claimants who spend no less than three days a week participating in some worthwhile activity. That would include firemen, lifeboatmen, emergency workers and those undertaking employment or training programmes.
Although unemployment benefit is primarily intended for those seeking to return to employed earners' employment, we have agreed an important concession for those hoping to become self-employed. They may be deemed to be actively seeking work for up to eight weeks if they are actively pursuing self-employment via the enterprise allowance scheme. The eight weeks will run between the time when the person attends the awareness day under the scheme and makes the application and the start of his self-employment under the scheme. I hope that those arrangements will provide sensible help to claimants who wish not to go into employment but to pursue self-employment.
In Committee there was a great deal of debate about replacing "refusal of suitable employment" with the concept of "refusing employment without good cause". The Act has removed the concept of the employment service having to prove that employment refused by a claimant was in fact "suitable"; the onus will now be on the claimant to show that he had good cause for turning down employment. We think that this is a much-needed change, but, as it is a change, we also feel that it is right for Parliament to lay down guidelines for deciding good cause so that claimants have an understanding of what to expect.
The concept of good cause is not a new one. Current legislation allows a person to escape disqualification for unemployment benefit for turning down or failing to follow up an opportunity of employment if the adjudication officer decides that he had good cause. The adjudication authorities have built up a considerable body of case law, but currently there is no guidance in regulations on the meaning of "good cause".
The regulations specifically require the adjudication authorities to consider, in relation to a failure to follow up any job opportunity, whether the particular employment would be likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's health or whether it would subject him to excessive physical or mental stress. Other matters that they will be required to consider will include any sincerely held religious or conscientious objections that the claimant may have to undertaking particular work, and certain domestic circumstances that might make it unreasonable for him to accept a particular vacancy.
The regulations provide that a person will not generally be able to show good cause unless his journey to work or training would take at least an hour, but there are exceptions of course for those with health problems and caring responsibilities.
Returning to a point I touched on in response to an earlier intervention, a person who turns down a job on pay grounds will not be able to show good cause outside what the legislation calls the "permitted period" at the start of his claim if the job opportunity has been notified to him by the employment service. Only vacancies handled by the employment service will attract that sanction. That will be an important safeguard.
Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister meet the House on another point? If the security is that the job has been offered by the employment service, will he guarantee that

1065
the employment service will not advertise or send people to jobs covered by wages councils, if the employer is trying to pay below the legal minimum?
Mr. Scott: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking. As he knows, the Government do not consider it their role to interfere in the way that he suggests. The employment service will not offer jobs at derisory wages. I cannot accept that it is right or sensible to move into the detailed control of what wages are offered, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is highly unlikely that the employment service would do that, but I certainly cannot give a guarantee that it will never do it.
Mr. Frank Field: I am not asking the Government to put their sticky fingers into the private affairs of all employers. The Government still have a statutory responsibility to lay down some minimum wages. I am asking that one part of the Government tallies with another part of the Government, and that people will not be sent for jobs paying below the legal minimum. Will the Minister give that guarantee, as people may lose benefit if they do not turn up for those jobs?
Mr. Scott: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking now, but I shall write to him on the point that he has raised.
the final point on this part of the regulations is about "trial periods". That is a new concept which has been widely welcomed. It recognises the concerns that affect people who have been out of work for some time. The regulations define the claimants who will have a right to benefit from that provision. The provision enables a person to escape a benefit sanction if he gives up a job from the sixth week up to the 12th week of a trial period. It will apply to claimants who have neither worked nor been in full-time education throughout the 26 weeks before the day on which the new job starts. That is an important step in the right direction, encouraging people who have been unemployed for some time to try out a job, knowing that if they fail, or the job proves unsuitable, they will not have put their benefit at risk.
I shall not detain the House for an undue length of time. Other points may be raised in the debate to which I may or may not wish to respond, but the three sets of regulations represent a number of changes to the provision of benefit. On the unemployment issues, I hope that Opposition Members will recognise that we have reflected in the regulations, without resiling from the principle we incorporated in the Bill, many of the concerns that they and some of my hon. Friends voiced in Committee. I assure the House that the Committee discussions had considerable influence on the detailed provisions in the regulations. I know that the hon. Member for Derby, South will feel that we have not gone far enough, but we have considered in great detail all the issues that were raised. I hope that she will feel that we have shown that the discussions in Committee were worth while, although we have not allowed them to undermine our policy intention.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Can the Minister tell the House whether refusal of work on the grounds of the hours of work being excessive, or bad conditions relating to carrying out the job, are covered by what he said?
Mr. Scott: I am confident that those who offer jobs to claimants through the employment service or adjudicate
1066
on these matters will do it in a fair and sensitive way. They will take into account a range of factors and I cannot say whether those factors will include the circumstances that the hon. Lady has mentioned.
5.58 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I join the Minister of State in welcoming the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard), to our ranks. I am not sure whether to commiserate with the Minister of State on remaining where he is, as the alternative might have been even less desirable. The Opposition welcome back the new Secretary of State, if only because in the autumn we shall have the opportunity to hold him to his own words about child benefit, instead of seeking to hold a successor to his predecessor's words.
I begin by drawing attention to the absurdity of the debate in which we are engaged today. In a fairly brief time we are debating long and complex regulations, most of which were laid before the House only last Friday. The measures relating to the Social Security Act 1989 will become law before the House returns from the recess, and the timetable does not lend itself to hon. Members having time to consider the implications of the various proposals before us. That is particularly important, as we cannot amend those proposals.
It is also important to consider the regulations because each set of regulations is complex, although they have three things in common. First, they all attack members of the community who need support. Secondly, they all reflect and highlight the objectionable nature of legislation to the purpose of which they give effect. Thirdly, such minor concessions as the regulations contain fail utterly either to disguise or to rectify the harm that they will do.
In common with the Minister, I wish to begin by discussing the community charge regulations. The House has debated the poll tax at length, and as recently as yesterday, so I propose to comment on a few aspects only of the regulations which, as the Minister said, in the main mirror the law on rate rebates. The decision to force all citizens to pay at least 20 per cent. of their rates was unjust and damaging. Its reflection in the poll tax, which by its nature is a worse tax, is a more harmful imposition. Those who face that extra bill are being cheated by the Government in poll tax as they were cheated in rates because they are not being compensated, as the Government claim, for the extra that they must pay. Accounting sleight of hand has clawed back the so-called compensation.
The figures used in yesterday's debate show how those on extremely low incomes will, despite all the Government's weasel words, be liable to pay not just a large part, but the full poll tax. It is clear, for example, that working under-25-year-olds with net incomes as low as £50 or £60 per week are likely to pay the full amount. Single pensioners without earnings on incomes of about £60 or £70 per week will lose all help. Couples on way below average earnings and with children will also be liable to pay the full poll tax.
Having studied the figures, we are somewhat dubious about the Government's claim that it does not matter if the poll tax is onerous and unjust, because one in four will get help to pay it. The Minister repeated that claim today. I am prepared to be generous and assume that, for once, the

1067
Government are telling the simple truth and that, when the poll tax first comes into effect, one in four will benefit to some extent from the poll tax rebates. I predict with absolute confidence, however, that if one in four people turns out to get some rebate, it will not be long before voices are heard in the Government or on the Conservative Back Benches arguing that the system must be too generous and that benefits should be cut.
That is what always happens under the present Government. First, they change the system in a way that happens to increase the burden on those on low incomes. Then they claim that that does not matter because those on low incomes will be helped through social security. Subsequently, however, they say that too many people are being helped, so the system must be too generous. The social security is then cut by a process described as "better targeting". The Government have done that over and over again.
We believe that the demand for at least a 20 per cent. payment from everyone is wrong and that the rate of withdrawal of rebate as income rises remains too harsh. The Social Security Advisory Committee, in its comments on the regulations, drew attention to the fact that the combination of Government policies means that low earners still lose 80p or 90p for every pound by which their income rises. In common with the Labour party, the SSAC rightly contrasts that with the way in which those on higher incomes lose only half that amount from their marginal tax rates.
Apart from the overall picture, one or two detailed issues should be drawn to the attention of the House and placed on record. First, serious problems have arisen in Scotland over the backdating of claims. We believe that the Government should re-examine that issue—especially if, as I believe the new Secretary of State for the Environment said yesterday, they want to improve the take-up of rebates. Secondly, there are bound to be occasions when overpayment of rebate occurs. Currently there are limits to the action that an authority can take to recover such overpayments, but under the regulations overpayment will be regarded as arrears, although they are not the fault of the claimant.
The authority can recover those overpayments by all the means allowed under poll tax legislation for the recovery of arrears—by deduction from earnings or benefits, by seizure of goods and by the ultimate sanction to hang over the head of the individual, imprisonment. The authority does not have to take any account of ability to repay a debt which, by definition, may not be the claimant's fault. Again, it is some of those detailed difficulties which foster our conclusion that such problems, whether of backdating or of overpayment, are likely to Occur.
It is outrageous that someone in hospital for more than six weeks, whose benefit then drops to £8 or £9 per week, should remain liable for at least 20 per cent. of their poll tax. They may also be treated more harshly with respect to earnings disregard than under the current law—and all at a time when the person may have graver things to worry about. The Minister is fond of using the phrase "a perverse incentive". To give a person seriously ill in hospital for a long time a "perverse incentive" to depart this world is perverse indeed. Similarly, it seems ridiculous that
1068
someone with a disability—already liable to a personal poll tax charge because he lives in the community—who goes to spend a couple of weeks in a hostel not only becomes liable to pay a daily collective poll tax as well, but even has to make a separate claim to get the rebate to which the law entitles him on that second poll tax charge. That is the kind of absurdity and nonsense that will cause great anxiety and concern and, which in practice will help to discredit this discreditable tax.
It is important to consider the separate issues raised by the other regulations before us which give effect to the Social Security Act 1989. The purpose of that Act is simply to drive people off the unemployment register at almost any cost—especially to them—and, if need be, into low-paid or even temporary employment.
The Minister referred to the way in which the regulations reflect some of the anxieties expressed in Committee about the dangers for the homeless, about the pressure on those who do voluntary work and about the absurdity of expecting someone on holiday to show what he has done actively to seek work, and so on. We welcome anything that improves the way in which the regulations might operate, but by their explicitness the regulations expose and bring into focus the full horror of what the Government are proposing in the 1989 Act. The Government have claimed throughout that a "tiny minority" of people—their term—might be abusing the system by not looking for work as energetically or effectively as they could. Because of that tiny minority, all those unfortunate enough to be unemployed will be exposed to weekly humiliation and shame as their failures are dragged into the light of day time and time again, week after week.
Ministers have argued—the right hon. Gentleman did so again today—that it does not matter that the majority will suffer because a tiny minority might be at fault, because that suffering will be avoided since, whatever the law might say, the employment service will implement the regulations with compassion and understanding. That is not and cannot be true. The employment service cannot implement the regulations with compassion or understanding. One need only look at the regulations for it to become crystal clear, beyond any question or doubt, that if the employment service is to show compassion and understanding it will have to ignore the regulations and fail to put them into effect. It is not possible for anyone to demand a report of the steps that are called for in the regulations and to be compassionate to someone for whom that recital exposes a weekly catalogue of failure.
The regulations require the employment service to ascertain what steps have been taken each and every week to look for work. They explicitly state that one step will usually be insufficient and that more suitable and appropriate steps must be taken. The Minister has identified a framework of possible explanation, justification or, in some cases, exemption, but the point of all our objections to the Act and to the regulations, which the Minister has refused to accept although I am sure he grasps it, is that the sheer process of questioning and eliciting that information, week in and week out, will harass and humiliate the unemployed. This is particularly true of two groups—first, those who have been ruled to be "fit for light work", a ruling that many people unsuccessfully dispute and, secondly, those who are not actually receiving benefit but are forced to sign on to continue to get pension credits, who often know that they

1069
have no realistic prospect of finding work and will deeply resent being put through this catalogue to establish their entitlement only to credits.
I should be grateful if the Minister can clarify, either today or in writing later, the steps that people have to take if they are not to risk losing benefit and if he will say whether membership of a job club or acceptance, however reluctantly, of an employment training place will of itself satisfy the provisions. I am sorry to say that, whatever else may be clear, that is not. The main point that concerns us is that those who fall foul of this aspect of the law run the risk of losing all right to benefit. If they lose benefit, they may well receive no income for a month, as the Minister made plain in his remarks and as we elicited in Committee.
At the end of a two-week period, a person will be judged as to whether he or she has been actively seeking work during that period. Such people would normally then get their payment of benefit for those two weeks in arrears. If they are judged not to have been actively seeking work, they automatically lose that money, but they cannot resatisfy that provision for some time. When they do resatisfy it, the benefit will again be paid in arrears. It seemed to us in Committee, and it seems to me now, that the minimum period for which one could lose one's right to benefit would be a month.
I know that a person can apply for a payment on the grounds of hardship—that would be a payment of income support; hence our parallel regulations—but, of course, that person has no right to such a payment. He or she can plead for it only if hardship can be shown. If it is awarded, it is liable to be paid only at a reduced rate of 60 per cent. of normal benefit rates. We are especially disturbed that this may happen where a doubt has arisen about a person's active search for work but no decision has yet been made. Once already, following the suicide of Rachel Caine, the Government have drawn back from withdrawing benefit rights while a formal decision is considered. We particularly regret the fact that in these regulations, and with regard to the provision about actively seeking work, the Government have reneged on that decision.
I am also alarmed that in these regulations the Government take power to withdraw benefit for a whole week if a person is thought to have restricted his or her availability for work on just one day. Apart from anything else, it is hard to see—again, despite the Minister's observations about the variety of circumstances that will be taken into account—how or whether that or other provisions will in practice allow unemployed people to study under the 21-hour rule, which has allowed some people to try to improve their circumstances while remaining unemployed and without losing benefit.
That brings me to the aspects of the regulations which are supposed, by encouraging people to undertake a wider variety of training or jobs, to "ease the rigidities"—the phrase used by the Minister in Committee—of the labour market. This is DSS-speak for removing the protection which our law has offered for 60 years and which prevents a person from being forced into low-paid, temporary or unsuitable work. The Minister said, with commendable frankness, that in these regulations the onus of showing whether work is suitable is removed from the employment service and placed on the claimant. My hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and for Preston (Mrs. Wise) pressed the Minister on that point.
It is clear from the regulations, and even clearer from the Minister's reply, that there is no pay so low and no
1070
working conditions so harsh that someone might not be pressed to take a job or training place in such circumstances. The regulations state that the possible danger to health must be "severe". We have had experience—my hon. Friend the Member for Preston will recall discussions in a previous Committee—of how restrictively that definition can be interpreted. If we talk about a person having a degree of protection only if there is a "severe" danger to his or her health, that again fills us with alarm.
Even though we have persuaded the Government at least to consider some of the practicalities of the issue—we are grateful for small mercies—such as travel time and what the work expenses are likely to be before people can be disqualified from right to benefit or credits, we still believe that they will not be enough. It is clear that people may be pressed to take a job or a training place which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead explained, pays less than they can draw on benefit, with possible serious implications for their well-being and that of their families.
In the past, when we have made this point, occasionally Conservative Members have said, "Why should that riot be so? After all, people should be in work and not drawing benefit, if there is any work available, even if the pay is less than benefit." We all know that there are people whose devotion to the work ethic is so strong that they are prepared to take work even when they might receive more to support their families if they drew benefit. There are people prepared to make that sacrifice on their own and their families' behalf. The fact that there are some individuals who hold the work ethic so strongly that they are prepared to take that step is one thing, but for the Government to attempt to force people to do so, whatever harm may be caused to their families, is another matter and may cause considerable family problems and hardship.
We are particularly worried about this point—again, it is explicit in the law—because the jobs and places that people are forced to take may be temporary, yet their acceptance may cause the loss of transitional additions to benefit. The House will recall that these transitional additions are paid only to those whose benefit entitlement under the new, improved social security system post-1988 is less than their benefit entitlement under the old unimproved system. These are likely to be people with minor disabilities, who previously received extra weekly payments but who may have lost them under the new provisions. That is exactly the kind of group who may have been ruled to be "fit for light work", but if those people are forced to take such work temporarily they will lose their transitional additions.
There are other detailed anomalies or problems with the regulations, such as the reference to "qualifying former employment", which I presume is meant to deal with those who take maternity leave and whose child care needs may preclude them from returning, or make them wish not to return, to their previous jobs. There are also aspects of the new phraseology for dealing with payments which the Department will decide are payments in lieu of notice, thereby perhaps deriving people of benefit.
These complex regulations raise such a variety of issues that it is impossible to deal with them in the time available to the House. In any event, because we cannot amend the regulations but must accept or reject them whole and entire, we should concentrate on their overall purpose and

1071
effect. The overall purpose of these unemployment benefit regulations stems from policies which have produced a vicious Act of Parliament, against the detailed implementation of which we have the strongest objections. I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the regulations.
6.18 pm
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: This debate is being held in an atmosphere of rapidly falling unemployment throughout the country. Of course, it has been falling for a considerable period. Although the Government must always remain conscious of the needs of unemployed people, they must be well aware also of the need to fill all the jobs using the labour and skills available as we move towards the 1990s. This is an enormous problem not only in this country but throughout the western world. In that context, the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister is all the more important in showing the Government's caring attitude towards those who are still unemployed and may be unemployed in the future.
I remember well our discussions in Committee on the matters we are discussing this evening relating to the need for those who receive benefit to be actively seeking work. I also remember some of the remarks made by the Opposition which seemed quite remarkable at the time, and the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has said nothing to alter my view this evening.
The state always has the responsibility to do what it can to help those who are unemployed to find work. However, although that is the responsibility of the state, those who are unemployed and those who advocate the cause of the unemployed also have a responsibility. In exchange for the Government doing everything they can to provide a climate in which jobs are available, social security and financial help in the short term for the unemployed, and extra training and places in employment, it is only right that we should be able to expect that those who are unemployed and who claim to wish to be employed should be asked to demonstrate that in a tangible way. That is not a monstrous or unreasonable suggestion; it is highly reasonable, and is the purpose of our proposals. It was the purpose of our proposals in Committee and the regulations flesh out those proposals, so the Minister is now carrying out his pledges in Committee.
The regulations and the criteria they contain show the compassion that the Government expect to be shown to the unemployed who go for assessment. It is important not to have the impression that we are trying to tighten up the system. We are not; that is why the hon. Member for Derby, South is so wrong. We are trying to be as flexible as possible and to give as much benefit of the doubt to as many as we can, taking into account the points my right hon. Friend the Minister made about the skills each individual may have, his work experience, the particular circumstances of his home life and any other difficulties he may have—which, as a compassionate Government, we would want to see put on the back of the legislation.
As a Government, we have done much to provide new jobs. We have done everything any Government could reasonably be expected to do, and far more than previous Governments have managed to do. It is important,
1072
therefore, that those who are offered all this help should try to take advantage of what we are giving them to help themselves. In a moral sense, the most important aim is to provide people with the opportunity to help themselves and their families. That must be the moral high ground, and that is the position the Government have taken.
I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short)—who I regret is not here this evening—speak several times in Committee about the jobs she considered to be unacceptable to present to people who were asked to show that they were looking for work. The worst job she could think of was working for a fast food outlet called McDonald's, and she went on about it repeatedly. I wondered about her motives and whether she had had a difficult experience consuming one of its products. However, she picked the wrong organisation. Organisations such as McDonald's have a proper management structure, and encourage people who show that they are prepared to work to get on.
The hon. Member for Derby, South said this evening that people might be offered work that was somehow unacceptable to them. We should be able to support work in itself. We should value the work ethic because work is good, not bad, as has been suggested. The vast majority of people, as Opposition Members say, agree with that.
Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kirkhope: No.
Mr. McCartney: Come on: give way.
Mr. Kirkhope: I will not give way.
We came to the conclusion in Committee that the Opposition thought that there was something wrong about. work and that work itself was not an especially good thing. They seemed to believe that, if the work was not eminently suitable for all the requirements of an individual, he should not work at all. That seems an odd attitude; if they want to be sensible, they should realise the need for us to be able to fill jobs as we go into the 1990s.
The regulations are not only eminently sensible and in line with the commitment that my right hon. Friend gave in Committee that he would puruse the matter further: they show yet again how we care and how we shall try as hard as we can to ensure that the regulations are applied in a humane and compassionate, but nevertheless a determined manner.
6.25 pm
Mrs. Audrey Wise: The whole purpose of the regulations, despite the Minister's protestations, is to intervene in the market, and to drive down wages and worsen conditions for those who are already low paid and already in difficulties as a result of lack of skills or other problems. They are the people who will suffer because of the Government's actions.
The Minister talked much about not intervening in the market. We know that the labour market exists and that it is a market in which people buy and sell labour, but we also know that the buyers and sellers of labour do not meet on equal terms. A person trying to sell his or her labour does so under the constraint that, if he or she fails to obtain an adequate price or proper conditions, he or she cannot withdraw from the transaction except at the risk of being unable to have the means of life. Those are not equal

1073
terms. The buyer of labour—the employer—does not face such a constraint; that is why workers have had to try to combine to protect themselves and to have some chance of achieving fair wages—a fair price for their labour.
Mr. McCartney: I can give my hon. Friend an example of the Government intervening in the marketplace to drive down wages. The Department of Health has circulated rules to district health authorities about the privatisation of internal activities such as laundry. One of my local health authorities recently awarded a contract to a company outside the direct labour organisation. The employees were sacked. Some were offered their jobs back at two thirds of their previously low wages. As they had already received the letter, refusal to accept the offer meant that they would not be awarded benefit. Some still refused to accept the offer and now do not receive benefit as a result of the Government's direct intervention in the marketplace.
Mrs. Wise: I thank my hon. Friend for that example. We have been treated this evening to a clear demonstration of the lengths to which the Government are prepared to go. In response to pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the Minister categorically refused to give an undertaking that Government agencies would not offer work at illegally low wages.
We are discussing not undesirable wages, but illegal wages. The Government hint and threaten that they intend to abolish wages councils. They would dearly like to do that because they do not want any wage floor—they do not want any wage to be regarded as too low. They have not yet abolished wages councils, however, and there are still wages that are illegal. The Minister has refused to say that the Government employment service would not offer jobs at those illegal wages. The Government are thus prepared to connive at employers breaking the law. Yet the Minister talks about not intervening.
I inquired whether refusal of work on the grounds that the hours were excessive or unsuitable would be regarded as within a person's rights. The Minister refused to give any such undertaking. In parallel with the Social Security Bill, an Employment Bill has been going through the House whose effect will be to remove a great many rights previously attaching to young people and women. There are jobs which at this moment it would still be illegal for women to take, but if, after the Employment Bill becomes an Act, women are unwilling to take such jobs, they may well be refused benefit. The stress that is being placed on workers to take jobs, regardless of the conditions and hours, and no matter how sweated the work may be, is unprecedented since early this century.
Let me give the House an example of the kind of thing that is happening to women's work at the moment. A well-known supermarket is trying to impose on its checkout operators a target of handling 25 items per minute. Does the Minister regard that as likely to do serious harm to a person's health? I can assure him that it does.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) talking about the new system EFTPOS, whereby the checkout operator passes an item carrying a bar code over a light? If so, 25 items a minute does not seem that arduous.
Mrs. Wise: Oh, so it is not arduous. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) does not seem to understand that supermarket checkout operators have to lift the produce. Has the hon. Gentleman ever tried to lift—[Interruption.] Yes, it has to be lifted. I have the impression that the hon. Gentleman never goes shopping.
Hon. Members: He does it all the time.
Mr. McCartney: He sends his butler.
Mrs. Wise: That is more likely.
My union has calculated that such workers may be handling a ton of goods every few hours—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Pembroke thinks that it is nothing, does he? The hon. Gentleman does not know what a Europacket of detergent looks or feels like. Members of my union who work on supermarket checkouts know what it feels like to lift endless products on to and off a conveyor belt.
Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Wise: No, I will not give way. I recommend to the hon. Gentleman that he volunteers to go to work in the supermarket to which I have referred—not for five minutes but for a week at least. I shall make very sure that his words and attitudes are made well known to the women in the retail trade whom he derides.
Mr. Pike: Is it not also a fact that, when checkout operators pass items across the machine that reads the bar code, the machine often does not read the code on the first time? When I have been standing in checkout queues, the operators have often had to repeat the process two or three times before the light has caught the bar code in the right way to register the transaction on the till.
Mrs. Wise: My hon. Friend is perfectly right.
I might tell the hon. Member for Pembroke that another well-known supermarket chain has a target of 20 items per minute, or three items per second—
Mr. Bennett: Three items per second?
Mrs. Wise: I am sorry—I mean an item every three seconds. That is already causing considerable harm to the workers in that supermarket chain. Conservative Members and their wives and daughters will never work as supermarket checkout operators.
Mr. Bennett rose—
Mrs. Wise: If there is anything that I can say with confidence, it is that they have never done such work and will never do it—
Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Wise: No. [HON. MEMBERS: Give way.] No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall tell him why. Yesterday evening I waited three hours hoping to speak on health. The debate was hijacked by Conservative Members who took an inordinate amount of time so that only two Labour Members were able to speak although the debate was on an Opposition day. I have let him intervene once. He has talked rubbish once and I shall refrain from allowing him to reveal his superior attitude and his arrogance again.
I have described the developments that are taking place in the retail trade. Employers are being aided and abetted

1075
in their attacks on employees by their Government—because this is the employers' Government. Workers who try to resist conditions which are totally unsuitable will be deprived of the means of life. That is what this debate is about, and it is a serious matter.
Let me give the House some further examples of the Government's hypocrisy. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who has not managed to stay to listen even to the speech following his own, talked about the high moral ground, and the Government claim that high moral ground. But the regulations that already exist—which will be worsened by those under debate—include requirements that people should be available for work at 24 hours' notice. That requirement applies to people who care for children or elderly people, who want and need to go into the labour market and who could accept work were they given a reasonable opportunity to make care arrangements.
The Government allow them 24 hours. That can have one of two effects: either the person refuses the job and loses the benefit, or the child or old or sick person has to be left in unsuitable care, or even with no care. The requirement for availability at 24 hours' notice gives people very little opportunity to arrange care. If the Government wanted to be reasonable, they would allow at least a fortnight, so that the person seeking work could make arrangements.
It is impossible for people to make arrangements for child care before they know whether they have a job, where the job is or what wages will be offered. It is only possible to arrange child care once those things are known. However, people are allowed only 24 hours to arrange care. If the Government really wanted to make it easier for people to enter the labour market, they would have changed the regulations, and had they done so, we would have supported them tonight.
To some extent, travelling costs are taken into account when judging whether it is reasonable for someone to refuse a job. However, child care costs are not considered. Under pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, the Minister refused to give an undertaking that someone would not be required to accept a job which left him or her worse off in an absolute sense. The need to pay child care costs can exacerbate the problem and lead to people being worse off. However, so far removed from reality are Conservative Members that they have ignored those genuine problems.
Conservative Members prefer to pretend that they stand on the high moral ground, and they accuse other people of wilfully refusing work. I believe that people do not wilfully refuse work. The vast majority of people dislike being unemployed. They dislike its stigma and lack of income and the fact that it causes many people to feel that their lives are without purpose.
The unemployed want work. It is the final straw for those people when the Government tell them that they are to blame for their own problems. It is the final insult for the Government to claim that the unemployed are wilfully refusing work and to tell them that, for their own good, they will be forced to accept work, regardless of the wages, the hours and whether it is night work or totally unsuitable shifts for women workers—which will now become legal—and even regardless of whether the wages are actually
1076
illegal. Those people will be forced to accept work so that Conservative Members can believe that the work ethic is being pursued in this country. It would be more tolerable if Conservative Members abandoned their hypocritical claim to the moral high ground and simply said that they were against the workers. That is the truth.
6.42 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: I agree with the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that it is a great pleasure to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) to the Government Front Bench as the new Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. Without wanting to sound in any way patronising, it is particularly welcome to see joining the Government for the first time one of my Back-Bench colleagues who has a great deal of experience in the subject for which she now holds a brief.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West lived in the real world, many miles from this place, she was associated with health and social security matters in Norfolk. The Department of Social Security, the Government and the House will benefit from her knowledge and expertise and from the sympathetic way in which she deals with these matters, as I witnessed before her elevation, when I had the privilege, over the past two years, of sharing two Standing Committees with her—the Committee stages of the Social Security Acts 1988 and 1989. I want to wish her every success.
It will come as no surprise to the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) to learn that I could not agree with almost anything that she said. Fortunately, I have never fallen into the trap of regarding everyone on the unemployment register as a scrounger, a ne'er-do-well or someone who does not want to look for work. However, I have not made the gross mistake of claiming that everyone on the unemployment register desperately wants to find work and is looking for it day in, day out. Sadly, that is not the case. I do not believe that there are many scroungers on the unemployment register or people who are not prepared to look for work. In many instances, the numbers are grossly exaggerated. However, we must be realists.
I want tonight to consider the regulations which bring out the fine detail of the broad sweep of the Social Security Act 1989, which introduces the requirement for people actively to seek work before they can qualify for and claim unemployment benefit. I see nothing wrong with that requirement. As I have said before, I cannot see any justification for fully able-bodied people to claim unemployment benefit if they have no intention of trying to find a job or taking a job if one is shown to them.
The 1987 labour survey showed that there were 700,000 vacant jobs and that 350,000 unemployed people could have found jobs because the vacancies did not necessarily require specialist training or those jobs included an offer of training. We are extremely fortunate in my constituency at the moment. There are 1,711 unemployed people, representing 2·9 per cent. of the population. However, companies in Chelmsford are crying out for staff to fill vacancies. It is not surprising that business men and retailers ask me in amazement, "Where is the unemployment? I am looking for someone to work for me and I am prepared to train them if they are not trained, but

1077
I can't get anyone and haven't been able to get anyone for weeks. Nevertheless, I understand that there are more than 1,700 people unemployed in the area."
There is a great deal of confusion about this. I believe that this requirement is long overdue and it is right for the Government to introduce the regulations, which lay down the ground rules.
Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman has attended more than one of our debates on social security matters, I am sure that he can enlighten his constituents' confusion. He will have heard several of my hon. Friends who are experts in this subject remind the House that levels of unemployment and of vacancies form a shifting pattern. It is not a simple matter of saying that there are X people here and X vacancies there and the two can simply be put together. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman could have explained that to his constituents.
Mr. Burns: The hon. Lady has not made a new point. It is obvious that there are constant changes. However, there are far too many vacancies going begging while the unemployed people do not take the jobs. That is the crux of the problem.
It is churlish of Opposition Members not to give credit where is it due to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security. As my right hon. Friend said, the regulations which deal with actively seeking work take into account the numerous debates that we had in Committee on the Social Security Act 1989, and they meet a number of the points that were raised by Opposition Members. The regulations have been improved by my right hon. Friend listening to the arguments and taking on board those arguments that were justified.
Mr. John Battle: Which ones?
Mr. Burns: If the hon. Gentleman will wait, he will discover some of the improvements that were made.
The regulations will place the onus on the individual to go out and find a job. There is welcome flexibility in the fact that the Government have accepted that there are times during the year when people must be away and cannot actively seek work—perhaps, for example, because of a death in the family or because of other personal problems. There are two weeks in which people can, for want of a better word, be exempt from actively seeking work.
Hon. Members should warmly welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the need to encourage self-employment. Allowances are made for people to become self-employed under the enterprise allowance scheme. Part-time firemen, emergency workers and other people who undertake employment or training programmes for no more than three days a week will also be helped by the regulations. The regulations will ensure that people who are out of work will register with employment agencies, contact employers and apply for jobs so that they can demonstrate that they can actively seek work. The improvement is that there will be no cop-out for those who genuinely do not want to work, but claim money.
Mr. McCartney: The previous Minister of State, Department of Employment sent his resignation to the Prime Minister on the grounds that he could not survive on £35,000 a year. In her reply, the Prime Minister said that she understood his problem. A Minister for
1078
Employment could not be persuaded to do his job for £35,000, yet that man wanted to take benefit off some kid who cannot work for £64 a week or less.
Mr. Burns: I understand what a mistake I made by giving way to the hon. Gentleman. He expected a cheap titter of laughter for that intervention, and I am sure that he was disappointed. It was a disgraceful and totally unwarranted intervention, which brought down the level of the debate. I shall continue, after being rudely and unnecessarily interrupted.
The actively seeking work test will apply to people who have no intention of seeking work. The Government have prevented a coach and horses being driven through the regulations by shifting the onus so that a claimant must prove that he is actively seeking work, rather than the other way round. In the past, it was too easy for people who did not want to work to go reluctantly to a job interview and to fall at the first fence. It is very easy for people who do not want a job to be singularly unimpressive in a job interview, so that no employer will employ them.
Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burns: No, I am sorry, but I will not give way. Several other hon. Members want to speak in the debate, and I want to keep my remarks relatively short.
A claimant will have to justify his actions over the set period. A glaring loophole will be avoided before the regulations come into force.
I welcome the regulations. The Opposition should be grateful for them. Only the most churlish Opposition Member would not recognise that the arguments in Committee were listened to and adopted. The country will accept that, if people are to take unemployment benefit because they are genuinely unemployed, as part of the contract the least that anybody can do is honour his side of the bargain and go out and seek a job. That will also ensure that unemployment is genuine.
6.54 pm
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I welcome the Under-Secretary of State to her new position. I always examine Cabinet reshuffles to find out whether any hon. Member with compassion will join the Government. The Under-Secretary has compassion, and I hope that she brings it to social security debates.
There is deep concern about the regulations. They will result in severe hardship for claimants, compel the unemployed to take up temporary training and employment schemes—whether or not they are suitable—and close the option to study on a part-time basis. The introduction of restart interviews resulted in a marked increase in the number of unemployed claimants having their availability for work challenged, often wrongly. Claimants lost benefit for prolonged periods while their appeals were heard and their cases were decided. Many lived on the arts and cultural side of life. I have known young writers and artists to be caught in prolonged periods of non-payment, and I hope that their cases will be sympathetically examined.
In response, the Government introduced a special regulation which meant that an existing claimant did not lose benefit until his case was decided by an adjudication officer. What happens to a new claimant? How long must he wait for his case to be adjudicated, and how long will

1079
it be before a decision is made? In such cases, there appears to be a safeguard—long-winded though it may be. However, there is no such safeguard for claimants who fall foul of the actively seeking employment regulations.
A circular to employment service managers states that claimants will not be deemed to be actively seeking work pending adjudication, as presently happens with availability testing.
A claimant will be ineligible for unemployment benefit or income support until an adjudicating officer makes a decision, a process which can take weeks. A sample of 5 per cent. of availability decisions between July and September 1987 revealed that only approximately 85 per cent. were made within four weeks. Only when an adjudicating officer has made a decision can a claimant appeal and take advantage of the opportunity to receive income support at a reduced rate if hardship can be proved.
Although participation in employment schemes will be formally voluntary, a claimant can demonstrate his active job search by joining a scheme. The regulations specify that the actively seeking work condition is satisfied by application for or acceptance on a course or programme that the Secretary of State has specified and considers will improve the prospects of that person obtaining employment or becoming self-employed. It is vital to know what specifying a course or programme means, which ones are to be specified, who gives the information, and who decides what is to be specified.
In practice, joining a job club, entering employment training or attending a restart course are likely to be steps that the Secretary of State considers will improve a claimant's prospects. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point. The job club in Southport is certainly successful, but I am far from certain about how job clubs are faring nationally. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point also. I believe that job clubs are not successful throughout the regions. Joining a job club is one way of satisfying the actively seeking employment condition. Job club leaders will have to ensure that all members are genuine and realistic in their search for jobs. How are they to do that? Job refusals may raise doubts about actively seeking employment or the availability of employment.
Finally, the draft regulations outline a range of active steps, including job applications and registering with employment agencies. They say nothing about claimants taking up part-time education as a way of improving their skills and employability. Given the existing pressure on 21-hour rule claimants to give up their studies, many motivated claimants will find themselves forced to take up less appropriate vocational rather than educational options. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point on further education.
I appear to have asked seven or eight questions in my short speech. I hope that the Minister will answer all or most of them. I have studied the documents carefully and I find that in many ways the Government's stance lacks compassion. Because of that, we shall vote against the motion.
7 pm
Mr. Mike Watson: I shall direct my remarks to the regulations on unemployment benefit, particularly paragraph 12 onwards.
I find it astonishing that in this day and age Conservative Members still make the sort of remarks that we heard from the hon. Members for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) and for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East had the audacity to talk about the Government's caring attitude. I find that unbelievable. Having done his duty for this evening by delivering his speech prepared by Conservative Central Office, he has gone off, no doubt to dinner somewhere. I hope that he enjoys it. He also talked of the high moral ground of the Government. The word "high" applies to the Government only in terms of their high and mighty attitude to people less well-off than them.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford told us that we should be grateful for the Government's policies and the new regulations. I find it difficult to accept the Oliver Twist mentality thrust down our throats by Conservative Members. It is utterly unacceptable because it is hypocritical.
The regulations in no way represent a caring attitude. They are absurd, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said. There should be no need to prove that one is actively seeking employment. I believe that only a small number of people are prepared to be unemployed for any length of time. Everyone I know who is or has been unemployed has found it insufferable. In my constituency, the official unemployment rate is 21 per cent. In real terms, if we leave aside the massaged statistics, it is much closer to 30 per cent.
Every day I come into contact with people who have been unemployed for periods, in many cases, in excess of two or three years. They do not need to be told that they will not receive unemployment benefit unless they can demonstrate that they are actively seeking employment. They are desperate for employment. They are crying out for it. Sometimes they take jobs with ludicrous rates of pay, part-time jobs or demeaning jobs which they never dreamed that they would have to take. That is the reality of Britain in 1989—a reality which the Government utterly refuse to take on board, as the new regulations show.
I refer the House to regulations 12B, D and E. Paragraph 1 of 12B states that an individual must take
"the steps which are reasonable in his case as offer him his best prospects of receiving offers of employment."
The regulations do not specify how the individual is to know what steps are likely to offer the best prospects of employment, yet, when it comes to the bit, the adjudication officer will be required to decide that there may have been other steps that the individual should have taken which may have improved his prospects. How will the adjudication officer, or, indeed, the individual, make such decisions?
Paragraph 2 lists the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether a person has taken reasonable steps. It is notable that he is not required to take the steps which are reasonable but only those likely to
"offer him his best prospects of receiving offers of employment."
Imagine being desperate for work and having to plough through regulations, crossing one hurdle after another while all the time it is assumed that one is trying to defraud the system, does not want to work and would rather sit at

1081
home with one's feet up receiving unemployment benefit. That is the assumption inherent in the regulations. The Government are wrong to assume that people do not want to work.
Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman is putting up Aunt Sallies and knocking them down. They are not in the least valid. When people first claim benefit they will be interviewed by a new claimant adviser. Their personal circumstances and past record will be analysed and advice will be given about the appropriate steps to take. Subsequently, if it is felt that they are not taking the most appropriate steps, they will be given further advice. Only when someone declines to accept the advice will he be in danger of falling into the trap that the hon. Gentleman outlined. The object of the employment service is to help people back into employment, not to deny them benefit.
Mr. Watson: I am glad to hear the Minister say that, but I wish that it was specified in the regulations. As in so many other cases where it is not specified, all power rests with the adjudication officer. I should be delighted if a provision could be inserted in the regulations to say that it is incumbent on DSS officers to give that advice to individuals. The regulations seem to be characterised by confusion, or at least potential confusion. Complete discretion for the adjudication officer is unsatisfactory.
Paragraph 4 of regulation 12B lists some of the steps that a person may be required to take to show that he is actively seeking employment. Presumably, the word "include" means that the list is not exhaustive. It seems odd to exclude the use of a jobcentre. I should have thought that that was the obvious place to which an individual would be expected to go to show that he is actively seeking employment. I hope that the Minister will inform us whether that has been excluded deliberately or whether it was a mistake.
In paragraph 12D, we see the Government at their most patronising. It deals with cases where individuals are deemed actively to be seeking employment even when it is clear that they are not. Apparently—I say apparently because it is not clear—they will not be required to seek work for two weeks a year. I presume that that is a form of holiday, which is generous, but it must be specified.
Paragraph 4 deals with enabling people to establish themselves as self-employed. The Government continually inform us that during the years that they have been in power, the number of self-employed has increased dramatically. Not surprisingly, Conservative Members welcome that. It is inconceivable that someone could set up a business and achieve self-employed status in eight weeks, given all the obstacles of obtaining grants, taxation, raising capital and finding premises. Apparently, if people do not have the business up and running within eight weeks, they can be denied benefit. That is extraordinary.
Paragraph 12E lists the matters to be taken into account in deciding whether a person has good cause for refusing or failing to apply for employment or training. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) eloquently outlined the difficulties into which that could pitch people. It seems strange that we are qualifying those conditions.
Paragraph 12E(2)(a) refers to employment or training that
"would be likely to … cause serious harm to his health."
The implication is that people will be disqualified from benefit for refusing work that would harm their health
1082
unless they can prove that it will cause serious harm. What is the difference between harm and serious harm? Where is it defined how an individual will know the difference? Surely, to a significant extent, it should be for an individual and his or her doctor to decide.
Paragraph 2 refers to responsibility for the care of another member of the household. What happens if a member of an individual's close family, such as one's mother, father, grandmother or grandfather, is in need of attention and does not live in the household but lives instead in accommodation nearby and yet requires care? Apparently such a situation is excluded from the regulations.
I do not intend to talk about those regulations at any greater length, because they have already been dealt with, but it is fair to say that they form part of a pattern. As I said earlier, the assumption is that people are dishonest and do not want to work. The pattern appears designed to punish people who are unable to find work but who, in many cases in my experience, have tried hard, indeed desperately, to find work, but who have been hit from several directions. The pattern involves other attacks on people's living standards, such as housing benefit cuts and the abolition of single payments with the introduction of the social fund. All those things were basically designed to save public expenditure.
If I may be allowed to digress slightly, appalling figures about the social fund were produced at the beginning of this month showing massive under-claiming of the grants available in its annual budget. It was precisely the Government's intention to cut such expenditure when they introduced the social fund, and it has worked.
I have already arranged to meet the staff at my local DSS office to find out why there has been a 54 per cent. underspend in the Lauriston area of Glasgow. Of the £379,000 allocated budget, £205,000 remains unclaimed. In an area of multiple deprivation, with high unemployment and appalling housing, it is not credible that that figure is accurate unless people are being deliberately dissuaded from claiming. Indeed, that is the trend that the Government are encouraging. They are trying to make the people who make a claim on the state feel that they are a burden, that they are doing wrong, and that they should therefore stop claiming. That is especially harsh on the unemployed.
My final point relates to young people. Another part of the pattern relates to 16 and 17-year-olds who, with effect from September last year, have been denied income support if they are not either in work or on a youth training scheme. Again, I refer to what has happened in ray own constituency where there is a shortfall—there are 1,300 more people wanting YTS places than there are places available. Unless those young people can demonstrate severe hardship, they are denied income support. That is appalling, but it is again part of the pattern to which I have referred.
The Government can do what they like in terms of regulations, in trying to suppress the unemployment figures or to dissuade people from claiming benefit by making it as difficult as possible, but they will not fool the people of this country in the long term. They will not fool the unemployed people of this country who will bear the brunt of these hurtful, spiteful and completely unnecessary regulations on the actively seeking work condition.
7.13 pm
Mr. John Battle: After 10 years' experience of a Conservative Government, and of the present Government in particular, perhaps we should not be surprised by the amount of time that the Government are taking to push through a tightening and reduction of benefits. It does not seem to take any time to get those things on the agenda. The machinery of government moves with remarkable speed when they want to reduce benefits or to tighten the social security structure. I say that because the Social Security Act 1989, to which these regulations refer, passed back to the House only last week and was given Royal Assent last Friday. Within hours, the regulations were before the House, and they will be law before we return from the recess.
We should be absolutely clear that the regulations on the community charge mean a benefit reduction. The Government have said that the new system will mirror the existing rebate system. However, the new system distorts the reflection because under the poll tax proposals people will get less than they get under the present rebate system.
Conservative Members have been in real difficulty with the poll tax. The Government sold it on the premise that every person had to pay, but some hon. Members asked, "What about those who are unable to pay and those who receive rebates?" The Government then decided that they would have to relax the provisions but said that everybody would have to pay at least 20 per cent. However, there is a difficulty in the provisions in the regulations. Because there is a finite and fixed figure in the income support regulations, this means in practice that, because of the average figure that has been assumed for the poll tax, some people will have to pay more than 20 per cent. That means that they will face a real reduction in their living standards because they will have to pay more than they do now under the current rebate system.
The Government seem to be carrying out a giant tax con trick. They constantly tell us that their Budgets cut personal taxation, but they are actually increasing taxation as a whole, not least by increasing indirect taxation, and now by effectively increasing local taxation. They are insisting that, if we want any residue of local government to be left in this country, everyone must pay the price because the Government are not prepared to make the contribution that they should make from the centre, from the Treasury at national level. In other words, to use the language of insurance—we may look back on the social security system wistfully as a system which did, indeed, provide national insurance—when we get to the small print, we find that the national sales pitch really means that full cover will no longer be provided because the total cover for the 20 per cent. payments will not be matched by the demands of the poll tax.
Conservative Members have woken up rather late in the day to the implications of the poll tax. Indeed, it is only in the last two weeks that they have come to the House and insisted that Ministers look again—after those same Members spent months voting for every clause in the legislation. As soon as they realised that the poll tax would hit their constituents, they were on their feet practically asking the Secretary of State to withdraw it. I am tempted to argue that if we had a re-vote and a free vote on the poll tax legislation now, there would be no poll tax and thereafter no need for these regulations.
1084
I hope that Conservative Members will work out the figures relating to these regulations during the recess. It is not enough for them simply to protest about the poll tax, and it is certainly not enough for them to pretend that the provisions will protect the poor against its implications. If they look at the detail in relation to their constituency cases, they will find that the provisions will not do what is claimed. I am sure that Conservative Members will be back—not this autumn, but the following autumn—asking why particular cases are not getting the support that they thought had been promised when the poll tax legislation was before the House.
Perhaps the most significant of all the regulations are those relating to the new Social Security Act and especially, as my hon. Friends have said, those relating to the actively seeking work test. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) surprised me because he speaks as though he does not come from the same city as myself. He obviously does not look at the various briefs that are sent out to all Members of Parliament representing our region. He may be surprised to know that unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside is not falling as fast as elsewhere and that the chamber of commerce in our region has suggested that it is likely that unemployment will rise again. It is concerned that the so-called "hard landing" of the economy will mean that firms will go into bankruptcy and that as a result there will be redundancies in our region. I speak on behalf of a constituency in which we have seen and continue to see redundancies in textiles and engineering.
When we talk about unemployment falling, it is interesting that even under the adjusted figures—the 26 reductions and the massaging of the figures—we still have unemployment at 1·9 million. It is higher than it ever was under any Labour Government, yet the Red Book—the basis for this year's Budget—says that unemployment is not expected to continue falling as rapidly. In other words, the Government's Budget presumptions are that unemployment will rise again and not go down as it has in the past.
Mr. Burns indicated dissent.
Mr. Battle: The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) shakes his head. He should read paragraph 4 of the Red Book, where the presumption is that unemployment will not continue falling at the rates at which it has, if indeed it falls at all.
Mr. Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Battle: I will not give way, because the hon. Gentleman would not do me the courtesy of giving way. In future he may like to do his homework before he tries to rebut an argument. I shall come to the points that he made in his contribution.
The hon. Gentleman appeared to create the impression that the regulations before the House will introduce a whole new system to coerce the unemployed into taking jobs. Does he really believe that nobody has been denied unemployment benefit under the current system? People have to he available for work now and they lose benefit if they are not available for work. The hon. Gentleman created the impression that there were no existing regulations making people go for jobs, because the key change in the Bill is the insistence that a person must accept a job regardless of the pay offered. The

1085
Government are going down the road of pricing people into low-paid work. The regulations cannot be read other than as tightening even further, in a most unhelpful manner, the social security coercion for people to work, especially in areas of high unemployment.
Those who fall foul of the new actively seeking work rule will lose not only unemployment benefit, but the income support safety net. I suggest to hon. Members that there are already problems, because people who breach the £5 rule, for example, or who are doing voluntary work for more than a particular number of hours, are already being cut out of the benefit system. Those people have no income while they wait for their cases on appeal.
I ask the Minister to look at paragraph 2 of regulation 6, which lists the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether a person has taken steps which are reasonable. I accept that we pressed in Committee for such things as the amount of time spent on voluntary work or on seeking accommodation to be taken into consideration, but if they are to be taken into consideration, the onus is all on the adjudication officer. The adjudication officer will have the daunting task of investigating all the points in that list before he can make a decision.
To choose one item from the list at random, how would the adjudication officer ascertain the claimant's "mental limitations" in assessing whether he is accepting the right job? Will the Minister spell out what the phrase "mental limitations" would mean in particular circumstances? The paragraph in the regulation offers no real protection, because, when the list of factors is taken into account, the adjudication officer will still have complete discretion to decide whether the person has taken steps which are reasonable. In practice, that means that although the Minister is saying that he has confidence in the ability of his Department's staff, he is shuffling off the responsibilities in the regulations into the ambit of the adjudication officers and the appeals tribunals. That will make it bad law, because we shall be back to the position of going through case studies as we contest the regulations, rather than having the matter made clear in primary law and in regulations.
In Committee we debated whether a person would have to accept any job on offer, no matter how little pay was offered. If people are offered wages that they cannot live on and they refuse them, they will be disqualified. It seems that the Government calculate pay solely on the basis of the average wage, which at present is running at £258 per week. Few of my constituents are on £258 per week. This week in the job centre in Bramley town centre, the wages offered for most jobs are just above wages council levels. I remind the Minister that the wages council level for the textile industry is £1·90 per hour, and jobs in catering and in shops are offered at wages below wages council levels.
In other words, if jobs are on offer at much less than £80 a week and a person turns down such a job, the Government are saying that in some circumstances, if the family loses its access to unemployment benefit, it could be worse off. The Government are now prepared to accept that situation to price people into work and to save the benefit system money. That is from a Government who, only in March, told the House that they had saved £14 billion in public expenditure, which they did not dare spend because it might have had an inflationary effect.
I submit that this is not just a tightening up regulation, but it is at the core of the Social Security Act 1989, as it will become known. What the Government are doing is
1086
unbelievable. They are knowingly pricing people into work. Like the poll tax, it may he that people, especially Conservative Members, will only realise what is happening when it is too late—when they have voted and their constituents go to their surgeries to ask them what the Government are doing. The Minister may reply then that it is just a few individual hard cases. The chance to tackle hard cases is now. It is not a matter of hard cases. The Minister and the Government are deliberately changing the social security structure.
Under the regulations, that social security structure is clearly stacked against unemployed people. To price people into work will have the impact of compounding a two-tier economy, in which some of us may have reasonably well-paid jobs with some future prospects and security, but the rest of the nation will be forced into low-paid, temporary and part-time work. The Government are deliberately going down that road.
We saw the speed with which the Minister was prepared to move on the issue of the mobility allowance. When we pressed for people to have access to that allowance, the Minister said that he needed time to do more research to see what the implications were for Government policy, for the Budget and for claimants. I suggest to the Minister that he might like to carry out some detailed work on wage rates in Britain, and especially in the Yorkshire region. He might like to do some detailed work on the implications and interworking of the family credit and income support systems.
He should tell us that he is prepared to reconsider the matter and that he will withdraw the regulations. If he does not, the Government will be left with regulations containing punitive and blunt instruments which will force the number of unemployed down by pricing them into the low-paid temporary sector. When the Government try to offer us the language of choice, they are really offering people the coercion for which the Government, despite their Cabinet reshuffle, are now becoming well known, and which the people of Britain are clearly rejecting.
7.28 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: I had not intended to speak, but I have been provoked into doing so by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle).
I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest. At the beginning, he set out a range of suggestions and detailed objections to the criteria for evaluating whether a claimant is genuinely and actively seeking work. When I listened to that part of his speech, I wondered whether the hon. Member had accepted the basic principle that lies behind these regulations and was trying to be helpful. I thought that by suggesting adjustments to the criteria, so that a decision can more fairly and precisely be made about whether an individual claimant is sincerely looking for work, the hon. Gentleman might be making a useful contribution to the workability of the regulations and to the justice with which they will be enforced—or was the hon. Member contesting the basic principle behind these regulations?
Later in the hon. Gentleman's speech, it became evident that he objects to the whole principle, so we should consider some of his detailed suggestions and criticisms in that light. We are entitled to ask whether some of those suggestions, put very reasonably and with great ingenuity

1087
—qualities that we associate with the hon. Member—were not wrecking suggestions, designed to undermine the basic principle of the legislation.
What is that basic principle Mr. Deputy—Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg your pardon. It is that it cannot be in the interests of an individual, or of society, to give a man or woman a financial inducement to do nothing when he or she has the ability to do an honest day's work. That seems to me to be a fundamental moral and economic principle. I will give way to any Opposition Member who wants to dispute the basis of that principle.
We must ask ourselves whether we should take seriously some of the hon. Member's objections. If we do not take them seriously, I believe that we should support the Government in producing a sophisticated set of criteria to ensure that that basic principle is delivered into our social security legislation.
7.32 pm
Mr. Ian McCartney: In Wigan, we recently elected a lady mayor and she has introduced a system of fines for people who call her Mr. Mayor. The fines go to charities. I think that we should introduce a similar system in the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, for each occasion that you are called Mr. Deputy Speaker. By the end of the Session, we would be able to put quite a lot of money towards certain charities.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Perhaps for sacked Cabinet Ministers—a very good cause.
Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion.
Regarding incentives and disincentives, Conservative Members' arguments have been based on a crude analysis of job vacancies. They have asked why there are so many vacancies, and why so many people are unable or unwilling to seek employment. We have also heard, again on the basis of crude analyses, that, throughout the country, there is a huge army of unemployed people who are unwilling to take jobs at any cost.
I take that as a grave insult to tens of thousands of working men and women throughout the United Kingdom but especially to people in many Opposition Members' constituencies. We represent people who, because of Government policies, find themselves and their families thrown on the industrial scrap heap. Since the miners' strike, three collieries have been closed in my constituency. Since the end of that strike, some miners have transferred to three separate collieries because they wanted to continue in employment but they have been put on the dole this summer because there are no more pits for them to go to. There are no more jobs for them. They are in the humiliating situation of being placed on the dole. That is a direct result of Government intervention, in privatising electricity and driving down the price of coal.
Many single-parent families in my constituency, mainly women, have a great disincentive to find work, because of the Government's legislation. If they find work they cannot take it up. I shall give evidence of that later in my speech.
If the Government cared less about the Civil List and more about the problems of the poorest in our society, this House might do the nation a proper service. The
1088
Government are hounding the unemployed and people on poor wages. They have been preparing the market, and distorting it, to ensure that we have a large pool of unskilled people that can be tapped any time the market chooses. In the intervening period, they ensure that the level of benefit is reduced, or is at such a level that people cannot remove themselves from the poverty trap.
Many people in my constituency have been brutalised by poverty. Some have been driven to crime by poverty. A prime example is a constituent who was taken to the magistrates court for breaking into his electricity meter. Everyone says, "What a terrible thing to do." He was acquitted on the grounds that he broke into the meter after he had an offer of a job in Aberdeen—he had been unemployed for over 18 months—and, because of changes brought in by the Government, the social security office would not give him a ticket to travel to Aberdeen to take the job. He became a criminal, in an effort to buy a train ticket to take that job. Thank God the magistrates on the bench had sympathy for that man's case.
That is how far many young working people are prepared to go. They are trapped in the benefit system and a life of poverty. They have little real opportunity for jobs that will enable them and their families to get out of the poverty trap.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) mentioned job vacancies in Chelmsford, where employers are unable to find people to take jobs. That is a growing problem throughout Britain. People are unable to move to take jobs because of Government policies.
The changes in social security policy cannot be seen in isolation. The Government have driven up mortgage interest rates to the point where people cannot afford to move house. They have introduced the Local Government Housing Act 1989, to double rents in the private sector. They have introduced legislation to close many hostels for young people, who move from one part of the country to another to find work. They have driven up travelling costs to and from work.
In the autumn, the Select Committee on Social Services, of which I am a member, will examine Government social security policies. We have already sought evidence on Government policy and incentives and disincentives from local authorities and bodies such as citizens advice bureaux, the Child Poverty Action Group and Government Departments.
In the light of all these political disincentives, the arguments of the hon. Member for Chelmsford must be challenged. He and many of his hon. Friends must come up with an answer to that challenge. We have received evidence from citizens advice bureaux throughout the country. I will tell him why there are job vacancies in places such as Chelmsford. It is not that unemployed people are not prepared to take those jobs, but that current social security arrangements operate to ensure that they cannot take them.
I shall cite just one example from the CAB's evidence. A middle-aged man in Sheffield could not take a job offer in London because he was refused a loan for rent on the ground that, as he already had an overdraft, he could not repay a social fund loan. Claimants who need to move house to take up work receive little help from the social fund. Removal expenses incurred if a claimant has to move house to take up work are excluded as specifically work-related. Under the previous supplementary benefit rules, a single payment could have been made for removal

1089
expenses, thus improving the claimant's chance of finding work and taking up a job offer. The Government have created a disincentive for people to take up employment opportunities, yet the hon. Member for Chelmsford and his hon. Friends berate them for not being more mobile in trying to get back into the labour market.
Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman said that he would answer my constituents' question about why there was both a labour and a skills shortage in Chelmsford. Unfortunately, he has not done so—[Interruption.] I hope that Opposition Members will let me finish my question. The hon. Gentleman cited the example of a man who would not move from Sheffield to London. I accept that he had a serious problem, but it does not answer the question asked by 1,700 of my constituents who are unemployed at a time when there is a serious shortage of people to work in the local companies of Chelmsford.
Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman raises two points, with which I shall deal in a moment.
There is a serious distortion in the labour market, not just in the availability of jobs but in the types of job, the availability of training and the opportunity for people's skills to be matched to job vacancies. Like the hon. Member for Chelmsford, I could go to my local jobcentre—not a mile and a half from two collieries that have recently closed—and ask about opportunities for the 700 miners who have lost their jobs. I could guarantee that, other than a small number of those miners, they all want to find jobs commensurate with their skills and abilities.
For the past 10 years, the Government have failed to provide proper arrangements for skills training for the country's work force. Indeed, there has been a de-skilling exercise, the like of which has not been seen in the remainder of the western world. That de-skilling policy has resulted in a shortfall of people able to contribute to the economy. That is as true in Chelmsford as it is in Wigan. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Chelmsford is only too ready to vote for those policies.
The regulations will not improve employment opportunities for the unemployed and those in low-paid jobs. The Government are good at targeting people, and they regularly amend the benefit regulations—not to improve opportunities, but to reduce the number of people able to claim benefit. The Minister has stood at the Dispatch Box seven or eight times specifically to amend housing benefit regulations. On each occasion he turned the screw so that a few thousand more pensioners or unemployed or low-paid workers could not claim housing benefit.
A large number of women want to return to work, not just for family reasons but for their personal satisfaction. They form a large, untapped pool of skills and mental capacity. They are prevented from entering the labour market because of the Government's social security policy, especially on child-care facilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) rightly raised the problem of the regulations acting as a clear disincentive for women to accept opportunities in the job market.
A constituent of mine was prepared to take any job, provided that she was given 24 hours' notice so that she could arrange to put her two children into a nursery. The social worker gave a guarantee to the benefit office that he would do everything in his power to arrange child-care facilities, even if only temporary at first, so that the woman
1090
could begin work. That would have provided some breathing space to arrange long-term child care. That woman was offered a job. She said that she could not start that morning but would ask her mother to look after the children so that she could start in the afternoon. She was prepared to take the job. That woman's benefit has been stopped.
Tory Members take the high moral ground. They say that they are not in the business of hounding ordinary people. They find their excuses in legislation. All that woman asked for was a few more hours to arrange child care. That is what she told the adjudication officer, and Tory Members should think about what happened to her. I sometimes wonder just where some of the adjudication officers come from. When they go home at night, do they think about some of the decisions that they have made? Are they aware that they have sometimes wrecked people's lives? They create anxiety and stress in families already overstretched by poverty.
The Minister says, "Don't worry about it; everything is rosy in the garden. Those people have a great deal of latitude under the regulations." The truth is that there is no latitude. Many of those operating the social security system have a great deal of compassion and they are under stress because they must carry out their duties in a way that affects ordinary working people. Indeed, many of those officers live in the same community as those who are in desperate need of help.
The CAB submitted evidence about child-care costs to the Select Committee. It said:
"A single parent in Birmingham with one child aged 4 had a part-time job of 20 hours per week, for which she earned £40 a week. She had to pay £1·50 per hour for her child to be taken care of, making a total cost of £30 per week. As a single parent, £15 of her earnings are disregarded, but she was still £15 per week worse off by working—so she gave up her job. She had hoped to extend her hours once her child started school—but she has now lost that opportunity."
That woman was working for 50p an hour. Can anyone come nearer to saying, "My God, I want to work. I want to do my part for the nation"? Would the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies)—the merchant banker—work for 50p an hour? Come on, would you work for 50p an hour? [Interruption.] I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was referring to the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding. He would not work for 50p an hour.
That woman is but one of tens—perhaps hundreds—of thousands of women who are suffering not because they do not want to work or because they are indifferent to society, but because of the Government's social security regulations. It is a national scandal. Indeed, even the Government are embarrassed by some of their legislation. They try to introduce it in short debates late into the night at the end of the summer term in the hope of hiding what they are doing. They do not want the public to know what is happening.
The Government are at war with many of our citizens—those who cannot defend themselves, such as single-parent families and unemployed youngsters. People in the north-west, the north, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are unemployed because of the Government's policy of disinvestment in industry. They take a hands-off attitude. They are the victims of Government policy, and when the Government have made

1091
them victims, they attack them for their inability to seek employment and say that they are trying to earn from the state a living to which they are not entitled.
I am not angry just at the fact that the Government are prepared to allow that to continue. What makes me more angry is that Conservative Back Benchers who had well-heeled jobs, who were born with silver spoons in their mouths and who never had to worry about the school or the job of their choice, where they could work, at what rate of pay and about when they could change jobs, do not know about reality. They have no experience of living in a community racked by poverty. As a Member of Parliament, I have had experience of living in such a community. Conservative callousness is born not just of ignorance but out of total indifference to the plight of Britain's poor, the 6 million-plus who live in a twilight world.
The final condemnation of the Government must be the youngsters who sleep not a mile from this place in cardboard city. They get up in the morning, walk to the jobcentre in Victoria street and wait for the doors to open to get a day's work in a London hotel. They work for a few pennies and when they have finished work, sometimes at midnight and sometimes at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, they go back under their cardboard blankets. That exercise is repeated day in and day out; that is the reality of the Government's policy towards the poor and towards poverty.
There is no denying that reality, and the Government cannot get away from it. We can all go down the road to Victoria street. If the Minister thinks that I am exaggerating, he should come with me and my hon. Friends to Victoria street jobcentre to see the displaced, the unemployed and the poor who are standing there. I invite him to come with us to cardboard city and to other cities in the country where people are living in the streets, forced out by the Government's system. Perhaps when the Minister sees what the Government have done and meets the people, he will ask the victims what they think about the Government's system. He should meet those people face to face and not hide behind statistics presented at the Dispatch Box. He should ask them if they enjoy living under a cardboard box. He could also ask them if they enjoy begging from a porter at the back door of a hotel for a few hours work washing plates just to survive.
When the Minister has had that experience, perhaps the next time he comes to the Dispatch Box he will not have the same frame of mind and steely attitude towards the poor. Perhaps after that the Government will come up with a system to replace the dirty rotten system that is operating now. Perhaps they will give all our kids a real opportunity in life and all our women a genuine opportunity for a job at a wage that they can afford to take. If that happens, we can really talk about opportunity for everybody in Britain.
Until the Government do that, opportunities will not exist for hundreds of thousands of ordinary working people. Unless the Government change their attitude, we in the Opposition will continue our campaign of harassment until we get rid of them and replace them with a system and a group of people who are prepared to put in front of those who want to work an opportunity and a system that will allow them to do so.
7.53 pm
Mr. Scott: We shall have to endure with as much fortitude as we can muster the continued harassment of the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and his hon. Friends. The caricature that he paints of this country is totally removed from reality. Every section of the population has seen rises in living standards as a result of the successful economic policies that we have pursued for the past 10 years. We expect that to continue.
Much of the debate was taken up by hon. Members going over the principles behind the Social Security Act 1989 rather than dealing with the details of the regulations which implement those principles. I am grateful for the robust support that we have had from my hon. Friends. I shall sum up briefly and deal with just two or three matters raised in the debate. As hon. Members know, there is no opportunity to amend delegated legislation of this sort and we have to take the regulations as they stand.
The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) spoke a great deal about over-payments and criticised the present system. She seemed to object to the fact that over-paid benefit may be recovered as if it were community charge arrears. The only amounts that can be recovered are those which are deemed to be recoverable. Any over-payments that arise through mistakes by the Department would not be recoverable in any case. The ability to recover over-payments and to do it by a small addition to the monthly instalments would be an easy way to repay the debt.
The hon. Lady spoke about the fear of imprisonment, but the only circumstances in which imprisonment could possibly be imposed on anybody are those in which a person had the means to pay the community charge but wilfully refused to do so. The hon. Lady also spoke about people who are fit for light work and those who sign on for credits only. There is no question of such people being challenged week in and week out about actively seeking work. She knows, because we went over it all in Committee in great detail, about the arrangements for initial advice and the subsequent updating of that advice if necessary. There is no question of our setting out in any circumstances to submit people to weekly tests. The hon. Lady well knows that the signing cycle is fortnightly and not weekly.
Mrs. Beckett: As the Minister says, we discussed these matters in Committee. He will know that in Committee we repeated over and over again that what he says is how he thinks the regulations will be interpreted and how the employment service will use them. What the Minister says is not what the law and the regulations say.
Mr. Scott: As I have said in the House more than once, we can look to the employment service to interpret the regulations in a sensible, fair and flexible manner.
As I say, the hon. Lady spoke about light work. The regulations explicitly recognise physical limitations and the type of work to which people can be guided must take account of such limitations. As the hon. Lady knows, credits-only signers attend the office only quarterly after they have been accepted for signing on, and there is no question of them being asked to discuss these matters weekly or more regularly.
I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) recognise the valuable contribution of job clubs. I am delighted that they are a success. Inevitably, in

1093
such an initiative, the pattern is uneven across the country. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman's experience is typical of the experience of job clubs elsewhere.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Derby, South asked whether participation in a job club would be taken as evidence of someone actively seeking work. In essence, of itself it might not, but I think that it would be a very important piece of evidence to be considered about the attitude of mind of the person concerned. If the person was also taking other steps, it would certainly add up to that. I can think of few better things than an unemployed person wanting to get back into employment could do than to join a job club and avail himself of its facilities.
Some other matters were raised during the debate, but I do not want to weary the House by responding to all of them, because I think that the House is anxious to vote on the regulations. They implement the admirable principles which underline important sections of the Social Security Act. In a year or two, when Opposition Members look back at the speeches that they have made today, they will realise just how wrong they were.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Community Charge Benefits (General) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 21st July, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft Income Support (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 21st July, be approved.—[Mr. Scott.]
Motion made and Question put:—
That the draft Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 21st July, be approved.—[Mr. Scott.]
The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 139.

Division No. 323]

[7.59 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Cash, William

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Allason, Rupert

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

Amess, David

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Amos, Alan

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Arbuthnot, James

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Couchman, James

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Cran, James

Ashby, David

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Atkins, Robert

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

Atkinson, David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Day, Stephen

Baldry, Tony

Dorrell, Stephen

Batiste, Spencer

Dover, Den

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Durant, Tony

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Dykes, Hugh

Benyon, W.

Eggar, Tim

Bevan, David Gilroy

Emery, Sir Peter

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Fallon, Michael

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Farr, Sir John

Bowis, John

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Fookes, Dame Janet

Brazier, Julian

Forman, Nigel

Bright, Graham

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Forth, Eric

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

Franks, Cecil

Buck, Sir Antony

Freeman, Roger

Budgen, Nicholas

French, Douglas

Burns, Simon

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Butler, Chris

Gill, Christopher

Butterfill, John

Glyn, Dr Alan

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Carrington, Matthew

Gow, Ian

Carttiss, Michael

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

1094

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Powell, William (Corby)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Price, Sir David

Ground, Patrick

Raffan, Keith

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Hague, William

Rathbone, Tim

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Redwood, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Rhodes James, Robert

Hanley, Jeremy

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Harris, David

Rowe, Andrew

Hayes, Jerry

Sackville, Hon Tom

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Sayeed, Jonathan

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Hill, James

Shaw, David (Dover)

Hind, Kenneth

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Hordern, Sir Peter

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Speller, Tony

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hunter, Andrew

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Irvine, Michael

Steen, Anthony

Jack, Michael

Stern, Michael

Janman, Tim

Stevens, Lewis

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Summerson, Hugo

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Knowles, Michael

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Knox, David

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Latham, Michael

Thurnham, Peter

Lightbown, David

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Lilley, Peter

Tredinnick, David

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Trippier, David

McCrindle, Robert

Twinn, Dr Ian

Maclean, David

Viggers, Peter

McLoughlin, Patrick

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Walden, George

Miller, Sir Hal

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Mills, Iain

Waller, Gary

Moate, Roger

Warren, Kenneth

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Wells, Bowen

Morrison, Sir Charles

Whitney, Ray

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Widdecombe, Ann

Moss, Malcolm

Wiggin, Jerry

Neubert, Michael

Wilkinson, John

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Nicholls, Patrick

Winterton, Nicholas

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Wolfson, Mark

Oppenheim, Phillip

Wood, Timothy

Page, Richard

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Paice, James

Yeo, Tim

Patnick, Irvine

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Bermingham, Gerald

Alton, David

Bidwell, Sydney

Anderson, Donald

Blunkett, David

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Buckley, George J.

Ashton, Joe

Caborn, Richard

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Battle, John

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Beckett, Margaret

Clelland, David

Bell, Stuart

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Coleman, Donald

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

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

1095

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

McGrady, Eddie

Corbett, Robin

McKelvey, William

Corbyn, Jeremy

Maclennan, Robert

Cousins, Jim

McNamara, Kevin

Crowther, Stan

McWilliam, John

Cryer, Bob

Madden, Max

Cummings, John

Maginnis, Ken

Darling, Alistair

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

Meacher, Michael

Dewar, Donald

Meale, Alan

Dixon, Don

Michael, Alun

Duffy, A. E. P.

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Morgan, Rhodri

Eadie, Alexander

Morley, Elliot

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

wing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Mullin, Chris

Fatchett, Derek

Murphy, Paul

Fearn, Ronald

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Paisley, Rev Ian

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

Patchett, Terry

Flannery, Martin

Pendry, Tom

Flynn, Paul

Pike, Peter L.

Foster, Derek

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Galloway, George

Prescott, John

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Richardson, Jo

Gordon, Mildred

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Rogers, Allan

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Salmond, Alex

Heffer, Eric S.

Short, Clare

Hinchliffe, David

Skinner, Dennis

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Home Robertson, John

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

Hood, Jimmy

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

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Spearing, Nigel

Hoyle, Doug

Steinberg, Gerry

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Stott, Roger

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Ingram, Adam

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Vaz, Keith

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Wall, Pat

Kennedy, Charles

Wallace, James

Kilfedder, James

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Kirkwood, Archy

Wareing, Robert N.

Leadbitter, Ted

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Leighton, Ron

Winnick, David

Lewis, Terry

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Litherland, Robert

Worthington, Tony

Livsey, Richard

Wray, Jimmy

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Loyden, Eddie

Tellers for the Noes:

McAllion, John

Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.

McAvoy, Thomas

McCartney, Ian

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill
  Lords amendment considered.
  Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill
    Clause 3

      THE PRESIDENT
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 18, leave out from "be" to "by" in line 20 and insert—

      "(a) a President of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal (in this Part of this Act referred to as "the President"),

      (b) a Vice-President of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal (in this Part of this Act referred to as "the Vice-President"), and

      (c) a panel of chairmen of the Fair Employment Tribunal,

      who shall each be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and shall exercise the functions respectively conferred on them"
      8.13 pm
      The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 17, 20 to 22, 75 to 77 and 81.
      Mr. King: These are technical amendments which carry out understandings conveyed in another place.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 17 agreed to.

    Clause 10

      SURVEY OF EMPLOYMENT, ETC., PATTERNS
      Lords amendment: No. 18, in page 7, line 28, at end insert—
      "(2) It shall also be the duty of the Commission to keep itself informed about proceedings on complaints under Part III of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976."
      Mr. Tom King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 19.
      Mr. King: These amendments are designed to cover a situation in which an individual case of discrimination is heard before the tribunal and, irrespective of the outcome, there are indications in the evidence or in the decision that the respondent may be failing properly to afford equality of opportunity. Lords amendment No. 18 makes it a positive duty on the commission to keep itself informed about such matters; and Lords amendment No. 19 enables the commission, when it has formed an opinion that equality of opportunity is not being afforded, to inform the person concerned of its opinion and to allow that person to give a written undertaking to take appropriate action.
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: We disagree. It might be for the benefit of the House if I spelt out in a simple example exactly what the Lords amendment is designed to tackle.

      1097
      An employer could decide to exercise a preference in favour of people who were not residents of west Belfast, or in favour of those who were, thus offering less favourable treatment to Catholics, or to Protestants. As long as that preference was not an absolute ban on the employment of people from west Belfast, or absolutely in favour of them, it would be legal, and that clearly undermines the intention of the legislation.
      The reason for this strange situation is that a complainant can prove a case of indirect discrimination only if he can show that the barrier that has prevented him from securing the post in question is a requirement or a condition—something which is absolute; and the courts have interpreted requirement or condition narrowly.
      There are two well-known cases in this regard—Meer and Pereira—which have been dealt with in the Court of Appeal. In both, a narrow interpretation was applied under which, in order to show indirect discrimination, the complainant must show that the behaviour of the employer constitutes an absolute bar to his employment—anything less is not direct discrimination. I am sorry to have taken so long with this introduction, but it is the context in which the amendments must be considered.
      The Government have recognised that the original version of the Bill would condone many of the practices that they claimed it would eradicate, but we are not satisfied that the Government have done enough to deal with the problem which they accept exists. The easiest and most satisfactory method would have been to amend the definition so that preferences such as the one that I have cited would be outlawed. The Government refuse to do that, presumably because they are worried that such a strengthening of the Bill would lead to demands for reform of the race and sex discrimination legislation in the rest of the United Kingdom.
      We think that this is a weak case because we should like both the cases I have cited to be upset under sex and race legislation for the United Kingdom. We understood the Government's difficulties, although we do not accept them, so we have been much concerned to arrive at an agreement with them on this matter. We proposed a compromise measure, an amendment which would allow the fair employment tribunal in cases in which such discriminatory preference were visible to recommend that the respondent take action to provide equality of opportunity. In other words, an employer would not be obliged to pay compensation, but he would have to put a stop to such practices. That would solve the Government's worry about the read-over to the United Kingdom, it would undermine the principle in the cases that I have mentioned and it would ensure that the matter was properly dealt with.
      The Government decided to reject our moderate approach and have instead tabled these defective amendments, in which they have placed a duty on the Fair Employment Commission to follow the proceedings of the tribunal and to issue an opinion that the employer should take action to provide equality of opportunity on the basis of the evidence heard by the tribunal. Quite apart from the administrative difficulties, that is not an effective solution, for a number of reasons.
      The tribunal will be obliged to give a clean bill of health to an employer who is obviously discriminating. That decision will be reported in the media and will convince employers that indirect discriminatory behaviour is perfectly lawful. "Decision not to employ Shankill man
      1098
      upheld" would be the headline, and the article would not go into the finer points of preference and absolute conditions.
      At the same time, the Government's solution opens a virtual certainty of a clash between the jurisprudence of the tribunal and the enforcement and encouragement role of the Fair Employment Commission. The tribunal will be obliged to condone as legal the practices that the commission will be trying to end and which it will be spelling out in its code for employers as undesirable employment practices. There will be unacceptable confusion about where employers stand. That confusion will discourage employers from taking action to provide equality of opportunity.
      The powers of the commission to require an employer to take remedial action on the basis of the evidence presented to the tribunal will be severely limited. As the Secretary of State said, the commission may, on the basis of the evidence, ask an employer to give a voluntary undertaking. If the employer refuses, the commission can take action only if it launches a full-scale investigation. That is an extremely cumbersome method of dealing with a case in which the facts have already been established.
      I do not believe that the Government have grasped the importance of the issue. That became apparent in another place on 11 July when the former Minister, Lord Lyell, cited as one of the major reasons for the refusal to change the definition the fact that the Bill was concerned primarily with eradicating bad employment practices, not with technicalities, but unfortunately the technicalities add up.
      shall make two points about that. First, the prohibition of indirect discrimination places a legal barrier on bad employment practices. The lower the barrier, the easier it will be for bad and discriminatory employment practices to continue. Secondly, the Minister in the other place appeared to believe that the definition of indirect discrimination is a simple matter of importance for the individual complainant, but that is not the case. It is of the utmost importance and relevance for the collective aspects of the Bill as the practices that will be lawful depend on that definition and will be cumulative.
      For those reasons, the Opposition believe that we must register our protest against the Government's unwillingness to take the problem of indirect discrimination as seriously as they should.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 105.

      Division No. 324]

      [8.22 pm

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Allason, Rupert

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Alton, David

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Amess, David

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Amos, Alan

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bowis, John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Brazier, Julian

      Ashby, David

      Bright, Graham

      Atkinson, David

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

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

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Baldry, Tony

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Batiste, Spencer

      Burns, Simon

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Butler, Chris

      Beggs, Roy

      Butterfill, John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      1099

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Lilley, Peter

      Carrington, Matthew

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Cash, William

      McCrindle, Robert

      Chapman, Sydney

      Maclean, David

      Chope, Christopher

      McLoughlin, Patrick

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

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Mills, Iain

      Cormack, Patrick

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Couchman, James

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Morrison, Sir Charles

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

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Day, Stephen

      Nelson, Anthony

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Neubert, Michael

      Dover, Den

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Durant, Tony

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Dykes, Hugh

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Fallon, Michael

      Page, Richard

      Favell, Tony

      Paice, James

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Patnick, Irvine

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Forman, Nigel

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Forth, Eric

      Portillo, Michael

      Franks, Cecil

      Raffan, Keith

      Freeman, Roger

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      French, Douglas

      Redwood, John

      Gale, Roger

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Ryder, Richard

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Gregory, Conal

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Shersby, Michael

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Ground, Patrick

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Hague, William

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Speller, Tony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hannam, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Steen, Anthony

      Harris, David

      Stern, Michael

      Hay hoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Stevens, Lewis

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Hill, James

      Summerson, Hugo

      Hind, Kenneth

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Thurnham, Peter

      Irvine, Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Jack, Michael

      Trippier, David

      Janman, Tim

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Jessel, Toby

      Viggers, Peter

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Walden, George

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Kilfedder, James

      Waller, Gary

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Wells, Bowen

      Knox, David

      Wheeler, John

      Latham, Michael

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Lightbown, David

      Wolfson, Mark

      1100

      Wood, Timothy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.

      Yeo, Tim

      NOES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Anderson, Donald

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Kennedy, Charles

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Ashton, Joe

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Leighton, Ron

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Lewis, Terry

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Litherland, Robert

      Battle, John

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Bell, Stuart

      Loyden, Eddie

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      McAvoy, Thomas

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

      McCartney, Ian

      Boateng, Paul

      McGrady, Eddie

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Buckley, George J.

      McNamara, Kevin

      Caborn, Richard

      McWilliam, John

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Madden, Max

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Clelland, David

      Meacher, Michael

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Meale, Alan

      Cohen, Harry

      Michael, Alun

      Corbett, Robin

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Cousins, Jim

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Cryer, Bob

      Morley, Elliot

      Cummings, John

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Darling, Alistair

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Nellist, Dave

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

      Patchett, Terry

      Dewar, Donald

      Pendry, Tom

      Dixon, Don

      Pike, Peter L.

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Richardson, Jo

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Rogers, Allan

      Fatchett, Derek

      Short, Clare

      Fearn, Ronald

      Skinner, Dennis

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

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

      Flannery, Martin

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Flynn, Paul

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Foster, Derek

      Wall, Pat

      Galloway, George

      Wallace, James

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Wilson, Brian

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Winnick, David

      Hinchliffe, David

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Worthington, Tony

      Home Robertson, John

      Wray, Jimmy

      Hood, Jimmy

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hoyle, Doug

      Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Frank Cook.

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Ingram, Adam

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos.19 to 37 agreed to.

    Clause 31

      ENQUIRIES BY THE COMMISSION
      Lords Amendment: No. 38, in page 24, line 7, at beginning insert
      "The Commission may from time to time require the employer to give the Commission such information held by the employer, being information to which section 29(1)(a) or (b) of this Act applies, as the Commission may specify; but an employer who has been required on any date to give any information under this subsection shall not be required to do so again before the expiry of the period of six months beginning with that date.
      (1A)"
      Mr. Tom King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 39 to 44.
      Mr. King: The amendments extend the powers of the commission to require the disclosure of information by the employer. The existing power hinged on the employer's having submitted a monitoring return, and extended only to information supplementing that given in the return. We have released the commission from both those constraints.
      Accordingly, the amendment provides that the commission can obtain from the employer any of the information which he might use for monitoring. Thus, where an employer who is not required to monitor applicants holds information on job applicants, the commission will be able to gain access to that information.
      The second effect of the amendment is that the commission can exercise its powers whether or not a monitoring return has been submitted. This is to avoid an employer who has neglected to submit a return attempting to get out of disclosing information to the commission on the point that under the Bill as drafted its powers came into play only following submission of a monitoring return.
      There are certain restrictions on the commission's total powers of inquiry. We have restricted it to six-monthly intervals. Although the commission has extensive powers of inquiry of employers, a balance must be struck. It is wrong that employers should be continually subjected to repeat inquiries. Therefore, we have set the six-monthly intervals.
      The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has argued that the commission's powers should not be so restricted. I know that he will he concerned to achieve credibility for the commission and the voluntary co-operation of employers. There must be some recognition of the fair interests of employers. The commission has no restraint. If it behaved in an unreasonable way, a climate would be created in which people would justifiably feel unwilling to co-operate in reasonable inquiries. We do not believe that the commission would abuse its powers, but we think that, in giving it wide powers, there should be some restriction and protection in these respects for the employer. That is why I do not encourage the House to support the amendment tabled by the hon Member for South Down. I ask the House to agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: The Opposition disagree with the Minister's interpretation of this group of amendments, especially No. 38. We argue that the practical implications of the amendment will restrict the ability of the Fair Employment Commission to require employers to supply information. We see it as another example of a Government attempt to restrict the commission's role and we find it unacceptable.
      At present, the commission may, after the monitoring return has been received, require an employer to produce further information, as the Minister has outlined. The Commission could, for instance, request a breakdown of the composition of the work force by grade and could then require further details, perhaps to verify that information. We argue that amendment No. 38 will prevent the commission, once the initial request is made, from asking for supplementary information for a further six months.
      1102
      That would be a serious hindrance for the commission in verifying the monitoring returns. It is an incentive to less enlightened employers to prevaricate and obstruct the commission's work. We certainly accept that it is a balancing between the two forces, but we think that, in practical terms, the amendment will work in exactly the opposite way to the Minister's proposal. We therefore oppose amendment No. 38.
      The Minister has claimed that the amendment extends the commission's powers in some senses, as it can request information beyond that laid down in the monitoring returns and will be able to ask for information even when a monitoring return has not been submitted. However, we believe that the practical effect of the six-monthly interval will he to constrain the commission's ability to pursue its inquiries unless it resorts to a full-scale investigation. We understand that a full-scale investigation can take place only in limited circumstances and is, by necessity, a cumbersome process. It would not provide an adequate method of dealing with obstructive employers.
      We are concerned about amendment No. 39 because it prevents the commission from requiring employers to produce supplementary information about the composition of the work force other than the information relating to the way in which the monitoring returns were compiled. That is an unacceptable limitation on the commission's information-gathering role. Therefore, we will oppose amendment No. 38.
      Mr. Eddie McGrady: In presenting Lords amendment No. 38 the Minister made generous reference to my starred amendment which appears on the Amendment Paper but has not been selected. I agree Chat it would be improper to impose on employers unjust obligations and unnecessary trouble in making these returns to the Fair Employment Commission.
      Lords amendment No. 38 provides that an employer who has been asked for information in the previous six months cannot be asked for "any" information within the ensuing six months. That means that if information is received from an employer that is not explicit or adequate and does not address the point that it should address, the commission may not ask for supplementary information to provide elucidation. That is why I object to the word "any". I have tried to provide a more practical arrangement by substituting the word "that". That would ensure that the commission would not repeat itself in asking for the same information, but it would have the ability to ask for additional information to process the information received in the first volley.
      This is an inhibiting administrative defect in the commission's power to pursue for six months the information for which it legally and legitimately asks under the Bill. It would have a stultifying effect on the processing of cases. For that reason, and because of the broader points of principle lucidly stated by the hon. Member for Redcar (Mr. Mowlam), I oppose amendment No. 38 in its present form.
      8.45 pm
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Evidently, information will be stored somewhere from which it can be made available when requested, but that was not the promise made to employees in Northern Ireland. They were told that after they gave the required information about their religion, schools and so on and after the quota was made

      1103
      up, all the information would be destroyed. Now we are told that this information will be stored and will be available to the commission if requested. I should like to know who else will get his hands on that information.
      As we know, there is a serious security situation in Northern Ireland. Information like this leads to people being fingered and murdered. The Government have a duty to tell us who has that information. Is it destroyed? Is the undertaking given to employees not really an undertaking but a falsehood? Will this information always be available so that it can then be made available to the commission when it requires it?
      Dr. John G. Blackburn: I had the opportunity, like many hon. Members, of serving on the Standing Committee on the Bill. I think that, on quiet reflection, Members who served will say that matters were debated in a way that brought particular distinction to the House of Commons.
      There was general acceptance in Committee that the most important part of the Bill concerned the commission's complete impartiality and its important role. In my judgment, Lords amendment No. 38 is the cornerstone of the Bill. There must be faith and trust in the workings of the commission. If there is not, the Bill will fall into disrepute, as the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has outlined. It is important that there are some qualifications to it. Having had the opportunity of serving on the Standing Committee, I believe that we should accept the amendment because it shows the weight and force of argument that are placed on the workings of the commission.
      I am particularly attracted to the comments of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) on safeguards for this information. I stress that there will be a great cry throughout the Province and in the House to ensure that the commission's reports and findings are confidential.
      I should like to pay a warm and generous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who served with particular distinction as the Minister on the Bill. In addition, this is almost certainly the valediction of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), as he takes up his new appointment. I wish him success.
      Mr. William Ross: When I listened to the comments of hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench, I had the impression that they, and to a lesser extent the Government, were behaving and talking as if there were a vast army of employers in Northern Ireland who spent all their time dreaming up ways to get past laws against discrimination and who were continually and assiduously practising discrimination at every level of employment and in every way they could. In revealing that attitude of mind, they betray the vast gulf between their views and the reality of society in Northern Ireland.
      I want to follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) when he talked about information lying around and being liable to be consulted by other people, some of whom might be of evil intent. Will the departing Secretary of State, before he becomes the departed Secretary of State, tell us whether the Data Protection Act 1984 has any bearing on this information?
      1104
      Will this information be stored in hard form on paper, or is it to be stored on computer? The House and employers want to know that. Will the existing laws governing such information and its storage be transgressed in any way?
      Some will say that the Bill is not sufficient. However, having passed the first group of amendments, it will lie permanently in the hands of the House to correct any deficiencies that become apparent. I am sure that the Secretary of State will remember that the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) turned down the point we accepted at the beginning of this debate. As shown in columns 65 to 66 of Hansard for Standing Committee B, in refusing to accept the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), he said that the reason he could not accept it was that it could be a devolved matter. Since the House and the Government have accepted the point this evening, it is clear that the Government accept that there will never be a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland, at least into the far future. As a result, it will always lie in the hands of Ministers of whichever party, for the political lifetime of all here, to make any changes they wish.
      Mr. Tom King: With all courtesy, I disagree with the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam). We discussed the matter a great deal in Committee and she fairly referred today to the point about balance. I have in my previous incarnations debated with Opposition Members the question of balance. The endless pursuit of perfection in legislation has often been the Opposition's objective and they have often not given sufficient consideration to whether such legislation will work. We can pass amazing legislation and Bills of huge complexity, but if they are ineffective or too complicated and do not achieve their objectives, it is a pointless exercise. It is a question of judgment, and we have reached the judgment that our proposals are a sensible way to proceed. I know that the hon. Lady will agree with me—this picks up a point made by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross)—that our proposals will work better if employers come to regard them as a reasonable and sensible requirement.
      I could recognise one or two employers in the Province of Northern Ireland who may not rush to carry forward to the ultimate the general principles of the Bill, but there will be many others who are willing to see what they can do, as long as the legislation is reasonable and not hopelessly over-bureaucratic. We have to strike a balance because we do not want to lose their support.
      Although the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) dressed it up in rather more lurid colours, he made an important point about confidentiality. He will know that confidentiality of information has been a clear concern of the Government in the preparation of this legislation. He knows that clause 19 is directed specifically to that important point. Clause 19 makes it an offence to disclose information from which a person's religious beliefs could be deduced.
      The hon. Member for Londonderry, East also asked me about the Data Protection Act 1984. I can confirm that the Act applies if such information is stored on computers.
      Mr. William Ross: Will that point be made clear to all employers?
      Mr. King: We shall take steps to try to ensure that employers are aware of all the provisions of the Bill. Perhaps the word "we" is a rather broad description of

      1105
      those who will seek to carry the proposals through. However, I know that we have been anxious—and I am sure that others will be equally anxious—to ensure that information and helpful advice is given to ensure the successful implementation of this legislation. Against that background, I urge the House to agree with the Lords in the said amendments.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 89.

      Division No. 325]

      [8.55 pm

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      French, Douglas

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Amess, David

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Amos, Alan

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Arbuthnot, James

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Green way, Harry (Ealing N)

      Ashby, David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Atkinson, David

      Gregory, Conal

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Baldry, Tony

      Ground, Patrick

      Batiste, Spencer

      Hague, William

      Beggs, Roy

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Harris, David

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Hill, James

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Hind, Kenneth

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Bowis, John

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Brazier, Julian

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bright, Graham

      Irvine, Michael

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Jack, Michael

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

      Janman, Tim

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Jessel, Toby

      Burns, Simon

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Burt, Alistair

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Butler, Chris

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Butterfill, John

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Kilfedder, James

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Latham, Michael

      Cash, William

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Chapman, Sydney

      Lightbown, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Lilley, Peter

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

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Cormack, Patrick

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Couchman, James

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Cran, James

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Mills, Iain

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

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Day, Stephen

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Moss, Malcolm

      Dover, Den

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Durant, Tony

      Nelson, Anthony

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Neubert, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Page, Richard

      Forman, Nigel

      Paice, James

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Forth, Eric

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Franks, Cecil

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Freeman, Roger

      Portillo, Michael

      1106

      Raffan, Keith

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Redwood, John

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Tredinnick, David

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Rowe, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Ryder, Richard

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Walden, George

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Waller, Gary

      Shersby, Michael

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wells, Bowen

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wheeler, John

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Speller, Tony

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wood, Timothy

      Steen, Anthony

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Stern, Michael

      Stevens, Lewis

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Summerson, Hugo

      NOES

      Alton, David

      Kennedy, Charles

      Anderson, Donald

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Leighton, Ron

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Lewis, Terry

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      McCartney, Ian

      Battle, John

      McGrady, Eddie

      Beckett, Margaret

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Bell, Stuart

      McNamara, Kevin

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      McWilliam, John

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

      Madden, Max

      Boateng, Paul

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Buckley, George J.

      Meale, Alan

      Callaghan, Jim

      Michael, Alun

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Morley, Elliot

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Clelland, David

      Nellist, Dave

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Patchett, Terry

      Cohen, Harry

      Pendry, Tom

      Cousins, Jim

      Pike, Peter L.

      Cryer, Bob

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Cummings, John

      Prescott, John

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

      Richardson, Jo

      Dixon, Don

      Rogers, Allan

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Salmond, Alex

      Eadie, Alexander

      Short, Clare

      Fatchett, Derek

      Skinner, Dennis

      Fearn, Ronald

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

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

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Flannery, Martin

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Flynn, Paul

      Vaz, Keith

      Foster, Derek

      Wall, Pat

      Galloway, George

      Wallace, James

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Warded, Gareth (Gower)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Winnick, David

      Hinchliffe, David

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Worthington, Tony

      Home Robertson, John

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ingram, Adam

      Mr. Frank Cook and

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Mr. Frank Haynes.

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Question agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos.39 to 44 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 45, in page 25, line 30, after "and" insert
      "in a case where it was reasonably practicable for him to comply with it after that time, to show"
      Mr. Tom King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 47 and 61.
      Mr. Tom King: I shall address my remarks to the first amendment, as it is an example of the others. It is designed to cover the possibility that an employer who was required to supply information to the commission under clause 31 fails to do so within the specified time, and for genuine reasons is unable to meet the requirements thereafter.
      The clause as it left this House provided a "reasonable excuse" defence for an employer who could not meet the requirement for information within the specified time. What it did not do, however, was provide a defence for an employer who could not provide the information even after the specified time—by reason, for example, of his personnel records being accidentally destroyed. This amendment allows the commission to recognise those circumstances, and to make appropriate allowances. It does not, however—I stress this—provide an employer with an excuse for not providing information on time: it therefore does not weaken the enforcement provisions made by the Bill. Similar amendments are made to clause 35 and 44.
      Mr. Jim Marshall: The House will recall that in replying to the previous debate, the Secretary of State said that he thought that the Opposition were seeking perfection and that if perfection were enshrined in the legislation, it would be extremely difficult to make the legislation work in practice. Perhaps Hansard will make it clear whether that was a distortion or a paraphrase. However, the right hon. Gentleman certainly said that Opposition Members are trying to make the Bill more complicated than it needs to be to do the job that the Government and the Opposition wish it to do.
      Throughout the lengthy proceedings on the Bill, although we accept the Government's good intent in fair employment and other key issues, Opposition Members have said that the Government have not gone far enough to ensure that the legislation will be strong enough to provide for fair employment within the Province. Time and again the Secretary of State has exhibited a tendency to rely on the word "reasonable"—what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. In moving amendment No. 45 he used the reasonableness argument again. To underline his reasonableness, he said that the amendment will not aid employers who wish to thwart the implementation of the fair employment legislation.
      The Opposition disagree with the Secretary of State on that. That is why we shall vote against amendment No. 45. The amendment further weakens the legislation and will provide some employers—we do not suggest that there will be many—who do not want to be reasonable, who are not the reasonable men to whom the Secretary of State refers, and who wish to thwart the spirit of the legislation with another line of defence if they fail to comply with the wishes or orders of the tribunal.
      As the Secretary of State correctly said, as the Bill stands, an employer who fails to provide information upon request from the commission is liable to conviction, but he
      1108
      has two defences open to him. First, he can show that he has a reasonable excuse—namely, unreasonable cost or inconvenience. Secondly, he can show that it was not practicable for him to comply or try to comply with the requirements before proceedings began. Amendment No. 45 adds the further defence that an employer feels that it is not reasonably practicable to supply information. Amendment No. 45 will place a further restraint on the commission's ability to obtain necessary evidence to identify persistent discriminators.
      The Government argue that the amendments are necessary to protect employers from reasonable circumstances—namely, the destruction of records by fire, an act of terrorism, or an act of God. However, the Secretary of State is sufficiently long in the tooth to know that, if that defence is available to employers, every employer who fails to comply with a request will run off to his solicitor or barrister to erect a defence that he can put forward as reasonable. The Secretary of State does not want to give such an opening to recalcitrant or persistent discriminators in the Province. He knows that some people are prepared to spend large amounts of money to be defended in the courts. Solicitors and barristers in the Province will have a field day trying to erect defences which comply with the reasonableness aspect of the amendment.
      I do not know whether the Secretary of State has followed through the consequences of the amendment. There are now three defences. The third defence, provided by the Lords amendment, is on the question of reasonableness. It is our view that more employers will be able to get round the requirements of the fair employment legislation. I know that the Secretary of State is busy contemplating pastures new, but I wonder whether it has crossed his mind in the past few days that the consequence of the amendment will be further to water down the contract compliance provisions in the Bill.
      9.15 pm
      The Secretary of State will know that the Bill contains a complex procedure for an employer ultimately to be deemed an unqualified person under the terms of the Act. Only after that exceedingly complex procedure has been undertaken can the contract and grant provisions come into operation. This group of amendments makes it even harder to visualise the contract compliance provisions ever being used. If the threat is no longer real, the provisions will be further undermined.
      Even at this late stage we urge the Government to think again so that the Secretary of State's last act is not to make fair employment legislation inoperable in practice.
      Mr. Tom King: We make no apology for seeking to establish a reasonable basis for the Bill. We come back to the question of judgment. The matter depends partly on one's judgment and partly on whether one understands the law.
      There is an error in what the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said. It is not sufficient for an employer simply to have a reasonable excuse. He must also comply as soon as reasonably practicable, or prove that the proceedings were brought too soon. There is greater protection than the hon. Gentleman appreciates. Our reasonable basis is even more reasonable than he may realise.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 77.

      Division No. 326]

      [9.17 pm

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Hague, William

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Alton, David

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Amess, David

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Amos, Alan

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Harris, David

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Ashby, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Atkinson, David

      Hill, James

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Baldry, Tony

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Beggs, Roy

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Irvine, Michael

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Jack, Michael

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Janman, Tim

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Jessel, Toby

      Boswell, Tim

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Bowis, John

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Kennedy, Charles

      Brazier, Julian

      Kilfedder, James

      Bright, Graham

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Kirkwood, Archy

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

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Knox, David

      Burns, Simon

      Latham, Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Butler, Chris

      Lightbown, David

      Butterfill, John

      Lilley, Peter

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Carrington, Matthew

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Maclean, David

      Cash, William

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Chapman, Sydney

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Chope, Christopher

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Mills, lain

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Couchman, James

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Cran, James

      Moss, Malcolm

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

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

      Nelson, Anthony

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Neubert, Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Dover, Den

      Page, Richard

      Durant, Tony

      Paice, James

      Dykes, Hugh

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Fallon, Michael

      Patnick, Irvine

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Portillo, Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      Raffan, Keith

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Forth, Eric

      Redwood, John

      Franks, Cecil

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Freeman, Roger

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      French, Douglas

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Gale, Roger

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Rowe, Andrew

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Ryder, Richard

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Gregory, Conal

      Shersby, Michael

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Ground, Patrick

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      1110

      Speller, Tony

      Walden, George

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wallace, James

      Steen, Anthony

      Waller, Gary

      Stern, Michael

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wells, Bowen

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Wheeler, John

      Summerson, Hugo

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wood, Timothy

      Thurnham, Peter

      Tredinnick, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.

      Viggers, Peter

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      NOES

      Anderson, Donald

      Lewis, Terry

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Loyden, Eddie

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Battle, John

      McCartney, Ian

      Beckett, Margaret

      McGrady, Eddie

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

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

      McNamara, Kevin

      Boateng, Paul

      McWilliam, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Madden, Max

      Buckley, George J.

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Caborn, Richard

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Meale, Alan

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Michael, Alun

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Clelland, David

      Morley, Elliot

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Cohen, Harry

      Nellist, Dave

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Patchett, Terry

      Cousins, Jim

      Pendry, Tom

      Cryer, Bob

      Pike, Peter L.

      Cummings, John

      Richardson, Jo

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

      Rogers, Allan

      Dixon, Don

      Salmond, Alex

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Short, Clare

      Eadie, Alexander

      Skinner, Dennis

      Fatchett, Derek

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

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

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Flannery, Martin

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Flynn, Paul

      Vaz, Keith

      Foster, Derek

      Wall, Pat

      Galloway, George

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Gordon, Mildred

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Worthington, Tony

      Hinchliffe, David

      Wray, Jimmy

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Home Robertson, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ray Powell.

      Ingram, Adam

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 46 to 69 agreed to.

    Clause 52

      PROVISION OF TRAINING
      Lords amendment: No. 70, in page 44, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 45 and insert—
      37A.—(1) This section applies where, in pursuance of affirmative action, persons are afforded access to facilities for training which would help to fit them for employment, for employment in a particular capacity or for a particular employment or occupation, but—
      (a) the facilities are provided only at a particular place in Northern Ireland or the training is confined to

      1111
      persons of a particular class, not being a class framed by reference to religious belief or political opinion, and
      (b) by providing the facilities only there or by so confining the training, access to the facilities by persons of a particular religious belief or political opinion is excluded or restricted.
      (2) For the purpose of determining whether any act done in, or in connection with, affording those facilities is by virtue of section 16(2) unlawful under any provision of Parts III and IV, the fact that, by providing the facilities only there or by so confining the training, their access to the facilities is thereby excluded or restricted is to be disregarded.'"
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Tom King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, we shall consider amendment (a), in page 44, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 45 and insert—
      'Nothing in Parts III and IV shall render unlawful any act done by—

      (a) an employer,

      (b) an employment agency

      (c) a vocational organisation, or

      (d) a person providing services mentioned in section 22(1)

      in or in connection with affording only persons of a particular community, facilities for training which would help to fit them for employment, for employment in a particular capacity, or for a particular employment or occupation.
      (2) For the purposes of this section "community" has the same meaning as in Part II of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.'.
      Mr. King: I know that we have had considerable discussion about this matter. I have already commented on the balance that can be struck, but it is not so much a question of balance as a point of policy. It is no secret that, as the Bill has proceeded, under the expert guidance of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), religious-exclusive training has been the issue. While we want to protect people from direct or indirect discrimination and measures to help particular groups, we are not prepared to agree to exclusion from training on religious grounds.
      The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) appreciates that some of the amendments that have been proposed would protect Harland and Wolff from this legislation if it wanted to run a Protestant-only training scheme. I am not sure whether that was the hon. Gentleman's intention.
      We believe that it is right to encourage people and to tackle disadvantage in the most effective way. It would not be helpful, in the present climate in Northern Ireland, for people with particular religious beliefs to be forbidden from taking part in training courses. This subject has been debated extensively by hon. Members and in the other place.
      The divide comes because this is not a matter of balance or interpretation, but a policy issue. We have not stood resolutely on the ground we previously held—we have tried to take account of serious points that were made during debates in Committee, and we gave a clear understanding that we would tackle them in another place. We are debating the form that those amendments took. The Opposition are saying in amendment (a) that the Lords amendment does not go as far as they would like.
      As a matter of policy, we are not prepared to take that final step. We think that it would be unwise, and bring this
      1112
      legislation into disrepute, and be extremely dangerous to community relations. That is why we want to improve the Bill, as we have done, without going a bridge too far, which is what the Opposition seek to do. The difference between us centres on the Opposition's intention to benefit a particular religious group, which would discriminate against certain religious groups.
      Lords amendment No. 70 provides for targeting of a particular location, such as west Belfast, and of the criteria used. One can do that without going a bridge too far. One can use the legislation to target training, effectively and legally, on specific areas and under-represented groups of people. That is what the legislation is intended to do, and it is perfectly defensible. Accordingly, religious under-representation can be taken into account when targeting training without there being any risk of direct discrimination.
      The Lords amendment has been carefully and expressly framed so that an employer who intends to benefit an under-represented group is protected from allegations of either direct or indirect discrimination, provided that members of the majority group are not expressly excluded. There have been lengthy debates about this issue, and I hope that the House will think that we have made a wise judgment.
      Mr. McNamara: It was remiss of me not to congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister on their new posts. I beg forgiveness for not doing so, if only because the new Secretary of State represents the constituency of my standard charge.
      The Secretary of State was right to say that this matter is the kernel of the Bill. It was the subject of much debate in Committee, in another place and at various meetings. I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) for his readiness to meet, to discuss and to disagree. Throughout all our debates, there has always been a major difference between us. The right hon. Gentleman referred to our amendment as a bridge too far. Although he has built many important bridges in the Bill. we believe that having got halfway across the river—I am about to mix my metaphors—he now finds himself without sufficient planks to get to the other side. The reason for that is that he has not dealt properly with the question of affirmative action.
      If this part of the Bill is not right, it will not be effective in reducing inequality in Northern Ireland. The Bill will create an expensive apparatus that will clearly identify the problems but will not allow them to be tackled. We do not doubt the Government's intentions—that has never been an issue—but we doubt the quality of the advice that they have received and of the policy decisions that they have made.
      Two key issues are at stake. First, there is a need to protect affirmative action programmes from challenges under the provisions dealing with discrimination. Secondly, there is a need to eliminate the conflict between the Bill and the sex discrimination legislation. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that employers can organise training schemes for the purposes of affirmative action—that is, schemes calculated to help members of an under-represented community obtain employment in a place of work.
      The employer must be protected from those who would claim that affirmative action constitutes a violation of the prohibition on discrimination. That is usually done by

      1113
      means of a specific exemption which excludes affirmative action from the prohibition on discrimination. That is the case with the legislation dealing with racial and sex discrimination, and it was the basis of our original amendment before we introduced new amendments in an attempt to accommodate some of the Government's fears.
      More interestingly, that point is also recognised by the Government, who have introduced amendments to protect employers who advertise posts in such a way as to appeal exclusively to the under-represented community. The Secretary of State will remember the argument about the illegality of the Fair Employment Northern Ireland Act advert, which said that it would welcome applications from Protestants. During the passage of the Bill we had to point out that that was illegal. The Minister said that it was not, but then introduced an amendment to make it legal. I say that not in a disparaging way to the Minister, but in order to highlight the quality of advice to the Government. The Government were prepared to recognise our case in advertising and in everything else except training. If the argument is that it would be going too far to include training, why is the same principle not applied to advertising? The Bill also contains exemptions protecting an employer engaged in affirmative action training schemes from allegations of indirect discrimination. An employer is all right on indirect discrimination but not on direct discrimination.
      Obviously, there is a major difference between the Government and Opposition and we regard it as fundamental to the Bill and the cause of much of our concern. The Government have not accepted that there is a need to provide an exemption against direct discrimination on religious grounds. They have two objections to such an amendment. First, they believe that they have done enough to protect employers. As the Secretary of State said, the Government believe that, if an employer provides a training scheme that would be indirectly discriminatory in the absence of an exemption provided for in clause 51, the scheme cannot at the same time be directly discriminatory. Unfortunately, that is not correct. The fallacy of that argument is revealed in the Bill because clause 48 clearly envisages situations in which a practice may be both directly and indirectly discriminatory. In other words, there is an overlap between the two forms of discrimination. That is why an exemption of some form must be included for discrimination as well as indirect discrimination.
      Secondly, the Government also believe that an affirmative action scheme which does not totally exclude members of one or other community cannot be considered directly discriminatory. However, there is no requirement totally to exclude one or other community in order to demonstrate direct discrimination. The definition of direct discrimination contained in clause 48 refers to less favourable treatment and not to exclusion. That is the distinction.
      Earlier in the debate the Secretary of State showed his confusion about the difference between religion-exclusive and religion-specific training schemes. In the former case, a scheme may be restricted to members of one group, hence the term exclusive. In the latter, the scheme is designed to enable members of an under-represented group to compete more successfully for employment, but it does not exclude all members of the over-represented group. The distinction and the argument has always been between religion-exclusive and religion-specific schemes.
      1114
      The Government have set their face openly against permitting training schemes that are religiously exclusive. We heard that again today. The preference of the Opposition was simply to base the relevant sections of the legislation on the race and sex discrimination legislation and permit religion-exclusive training. This had the support of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, but it is a nettle which throughout the debate the Government have refused to grasp. Nevertheless, the Opposition supported by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), again in a bid to secure agreement, attempted to accommodate the Government by tabling a variety of amendments at various stages of the passage of the Bill which allowed for religion-specific training, but not religion-exclusive training.
      Unfortunately, it has become painfully obvious that the Government have not provided legal protection for religion-specific training. I am convinced that the Government hope that in practice religion-specific training will take place. They believe that this will happen through a variety of proxy criteria rather than through the use of religion itself. The problem is that the law is not what the Government intend it to be but what appears in the statute book. The nod and wink approach to an employer is not a proper way to legislate.
      An examination of the Government amendment clearly shows that it has not satisfied the conditions that we laid down for our support of the Bill on Third Reading. We assumed, rightly or wrongly, that the Government would introduce an amendment that made religion-specific affirmative action lawful. We understood, although we did not accept it, that they would look at religion exclusive, but we wanted religion specific. Instead, we have an amendment that prevents religion-specific training, because it specifically prevents the employer from taking religion into account. The amendment would render unlawful the affirmative action programmes that the Bill is designed to promote.
      9.45 pm
      This strange consequence of the Government amendment is something that they find hard to take on board and one questions the nature of the advice that they are receiving. The surrealistic consequences can be imagined easily. Imagine an employer who launches an affirmative action programme and finds himself before the fair employment tribunal, asked to justify his position. The cross-examination would go something like this: "Why did you organise this affirmation action scheme?" Answer: "Because I wanted to increase the numbers of an unrepresented group." "Who are they?" "They are Catholics"—or, as the case might be, Protestants. "That is to use religion as a criterion for selection?" "Yes." "You are out of order under the Government's amendment."
      Affirmative action programmes designed to rectify religious imbalances in the work force must inevitably contain an element of direct discrimination on religious grounds, but this is a factor that employers are not allowed to take into account when pursuing affirmative action. The Government amendment, to say the least, is, in the phrase beloved by the Department of Economic Development, technically deficient.
      Faced with the Government's inability to provide sufficient protection for affirmative action, we believed that we could make our point most clearly by returning to our original position, with an amendment that extends the

      1115
      same protection to affirmative action under this legislation as already exists under the sex and race discrimination laws. Our amendment is clear and unambiguous on this point. The Government have failed to grasp that people abroad will not understand why the law on religious discrimination is not as strong, clear and precise in Northern Ireland as it is on the island of Great Britain.
      Simplicity is a virtue in this respect. The more complex the legislation, the less affirmative action will take place. There is a need to clear up the Bill in order that employers have a clear understanding of what is permissible and what is not. This House cannot allow an excessive element of ambiguity to creep in. That would discourage employers from taking action to rectify religious imbalances in the work force.
      The Lords amendment also contains another problem, one which the Opposition amendment has the further merit of resolving. This is the conflict between the Government amendment and the Sex Discrimination Order (Northern Ireland) 1988 and the EC's equal treatment directive of 1976. Although the Lords amendment avoids placing indirectly discriminatory criteria on the statute book, unlike the Bill as it stands without the Lords amendment, it encourages employers to use such roundabout methods, because they are prevented from engaging in religion specific training. The criteria in the existing clause, such as age, length of service and unemployment, would all be likely to discriminate against women, and therefore be liable to legal challenge.
      Faced with that, the Government have taken out a particular provision. However, any of the criteria suggested are likely to have that effect, whether or not they appear on the face of the Bill. The value of our amendment is that the virtue of simplicity would encourage employers to pursue affirmative action programmes without having to run the risk that any criteria that they use could be challenged in the courts and taken as far as the European Community.
      Finally, I shall place on record the Opposition's disappointment that the Government were unable to meet this point and hence to provide a Bill that would be workable and would have a serious effect on the problem of inequality of opportunity in employment in Northern Ireland. We made it clear that we believed that the changes in the Bill were necessary if it was to make an effective contribution to the establishment of fair employment in Northern Ireland.
      We were prepared to give the Bill the benefit of the doubt in many parts that we feel are defective, such as contract compliance, if proper amendments were made in other parts.
      Affirmative action was one of these concerns; others were indirect discrimination and the introduction of an independent element into the section 42 national security certification procedure, and the improved areas-the remedies available to victims of discrimination, monitoring and timetables. There has been some movement on these latter issues. However, the first two have not been satisfactorily resolved, much to my regret. As a result, it would be dishonest of me to say that I believe the Bill will be as effective an instrument as the Secretary of State believes it will be.
      1116
      The situation is not beyond redemption. Although the Bill may not be the solution that it should have been, there are many ways in which the Government can reaffirm their commitment to fair employment and make some progress. They can still have an impact on fair employment and on affirmative action programmes and, at the same time, realistically attempt to attract inward investment to the Province, which is what it needs. Large parts of the Bill contain enabling measures, so it should be the priority of the Government to draw up the most effective code of practice and regulations possible within the limitations of the Bill—particularly for affirmative action programmes.
      Due attention must be paid to the fair employment aspects of all Government policy—such as the location of public sector jobs and the location of industry. It is essential that all efforts be made to maximise the number of jobs. The Labour party wants fair employment and more employment, and it would be wrong of me not to congratulate the Secretary of State and his former Under-Secretary on the number of jobs that they have sought to bring to the Province. They have attempted to do a great deal in that respect.
      It would be a mistake to think that the passage of this legislation is the end of the road: it is only the beginning. I am sorry that we have started out so hesitantly, but I still believe that we shall he able to make progress.
      Mr. McGrady: I should like to remedy my earlier omission by congratulating the Minister on his new employment. I want to record my and my colleagues' thanks for his forthright and honest approach to the affairs of Northern Ireland. We often disagreed, but at least we did so in a gentlemanly fashion, and we welcome his successor to his new position. I also record my appreciation of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who had charge of the Committee and whom I found most receptive and understanding. I wish him well in his future endeavours.
      Lords amendment No. 70 concerns an area in which the Government have shown a persistent reluctance to call a spade a spade. The Bill deals with religious discrimination, yet the Government seem preoccupied with avoiding that term. Clause 52 deals with outreach programmes—affirmative action programmes reaching out to sectors of the community which are under-represented in certain employers' work forces.
      One of the most obvious outreach programmes is the provision of training facilities which we are now debating. The original Bill used every form of terminology except religion: areas of high unemployment, length of unemployment and even age. Then we added length of service. Suddenly we find that these were all totally inadequate and are wiped out by the Lords amendment.
      The Government have come along and tried another definition of the problem, using the word "class". It is the only categorisation to be found in the Lords amendment:
      "the training is confined to persons of a particular class, not being a class framed by reference to religious belief or political opinion".
      I defy the Minister to define class in a way that would satisfy the circumstances of Northern Ireland and provide the classification required to remedy the problems that the Bill has attempted to deal with. But the worst definition was in the original clause 52. Part II of the Bill defined communities as the Protestant community and the Roman

      1117
      Catholic community, yet in every other part of the Bill, the Government have been over-sensitive about putting down in black and white what its terminology means.
      I would not argue for extra sympathy on religious grounds, but if we are to redress the imbalances, be they against the Protestant community or the Roman Catholic community, in the work force of a particular employer in a particular area, it is essential that the Bill permits training and outreach programmes to be directed at the under-represented community. I see no legal or moral objection to outreach programmes and training programmes welcoming applications for training from a particular section of the community which is underrepresented, without excluding members of the other community, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) pointed out.
      The Government's dreadful reticence and over-sensitivity is displayed by their abandonment of previous attempts under the original clause 52, which are replaced by the terminology of class. The Government should accept the amendment to the Lords amendment proposed by Labour Members and myself, to put clearly on the record the intent, the purpose and, hopefully, the practicality of the Bill.
      Mr. William Ross: Anyone who listened carefully to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) must have shuddered when he drew attention to the fact that the Fair Employment Agency, which is supposed to monitor religious discrimination in Northern Ireland, placed an illegal advertisement in a newspaper to correct the imbalance in its work force. It did so believing that its efforts to correct that imbalance were sufficient to make what was illegal legal, and then found out that the illegality remained. That should have made plain to everyone the sheer complexity of the subject and the immense difficulties in trying to frame legislation to deal with it, rather than let the market deal with it, as Conservative Members are fond of proclaiming when it suits them and desert so rapidly when it does not.
      The Bill has been improved by the other place, in so far as it is possible to improve such a weird and wonderful structure. We are grateful for that and we join the Government in resisting those who would destroy the improvements that have been made.
      When my right hon. and hon. Friends examined the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and other assorted parties on this side of the House, we were surprised as it seemed to us to be a purely sectarian amendment and that that was the only way in which it could be described. The Secretary of State said that the Bill expressly excluded training schemes from which people could be excluded because of religious denomination. However, religious denomination does not really enter into it because one has to be a Protestant if one happens to be born in a Protestant community and educated at a state school, and one has to be a Roman Catholic if one happens to be born in what is perceived to be a Roman Catholic community and educated in a Roman Catholic school.
      The Secretary of State then went on to tell us why we could not have training schemes that were expressly for Roman Catholics or for Protestants, but that the Goverment could possibly deal with that through the location of the training schemes. Anyone who knows the situation in Northern Ireland knows what happens in
      1118
      some training centres. There are some training centres with practically no Protestants and others where the number of Roman Catholics is extremely small.
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill, the Extradition Bill [Lords], the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords], and the Continental Shelf Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory]

    Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill
    Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Ross: I did not notice that we had approached the witching hour of 10 o'clock, but now that we are past it we can keep on going until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
    Anyone who knows what goes on in practice in Northern Ireland knows perfectly well what the Secretary of State was getting at. He was saying that some training centres would cater for the Roman Catholic population and others would cater largely for the Protestant population. That is his way of getting around the difficulties that the proponents of the Bill have identified. I largely believe in the market economy, but I believe that the Bill is nonsense. As we trundle towards the end of its passage through this place, the nonsense and humbug become more and more exposed.
    I neglected to say a fond farewell to our departing Secretary of State. I say farewell, but without fondness, because he came to Northern Ireland and was handed the poisoned chalice of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which was created by his predecessor. From what the departing Secretary of State said on television the other evening, I thought that he was preparing the policy to be followed by his successor. That is a strange attitude for the Government to adopt, but no doubt the House and the country will get used to departing Secretaries of State always stating the policy to be followed by their successors. Let us hope that the right hon. Gentleman's successor enjoys rather more success. I am sorry that his successor will be trying to implement a policy that Members on this Bench will never accept.
    Mr. Tom King: This is well-trodden ground. I appreciate the tribute that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. MacNamara) paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggars), but I do not appreciate the less than generous tributes that he is inclined to pay to officials. That is wrong.
    I take responsibility for the policies put forward, but the hon. Gentleman chooses to seek to divide. He thinks that, if he pays tributes to me for what he thinks I am genuinely trying to do about employment, he can then try to suggest that officials are somehow trying to undermine me. That is grossly unfair to officials who have worked extremely hard on this Bill, which deals with extremely difficult matters. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that those matters are not the most popular to pursue in certain quarters of Northern Ireland. Those officials worked on them extremely conscientiously and they have

    1119
    my great admiration and gratitude for the work that they have done—that is one of the closing statements I would like to make as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
    The hon. Gentleman is a member of a party that has some aspirations to become the Government. If the hon. Gentleman shortly hopes to achieve that objective, I do not recommend the policy of vilifying the officials who could conceivably, forbid the day, work for him. I say that in all candour. I do and will take any criticism, often sometimes more than I enjoy, for policies that come from the Departments that I have the honour to represent in this House. I will not sit and listen to criticisms of officials and pretend that they are running a private war of their own or are not to be trusted in any way, especially when their work has been outstanding and most conscientious. If the hon. Gentleman becomes the instrument of lawyers who seek to argue with other lawyers and suggest that there is something unworthy about the opinions of other lawyers, that does not do him justice, either. I do not commend that course to him.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North raised a point of contrast between different advertisements. and asked how there could be an advertisement that appeared to favour one group. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) answered him: it is one thing to advertise and encourage representation from a minority under-represented group, but in no way does that exclude people from another part of the community from applying. The hon. Member for South Down was right. At the point of selection for the job, the merit principle will apply.
    I have not taken part in the detailed examination of the Bill. I am glad that I have not had to listen to the explanations by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North about the difference between religion-exclusive and religion-specific. It sounds like a distinction without a difference. The idea that we go around Northern Ireland explaining to a lot of employers the subtle difference between the two is not an attractive course. I am afraid that it falls into the trap for which I have already chastised the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam)—losing that valuable quality of balance that is so important in this matter.
    The hon. Member for South Down was worried about the protection for outreach training. I should like to confirm what I have already said. Amendment No. 70 has been carefully and expressly framed so that an employer who intends to benefit an under-represented group is protected from allegations of both direct and indirect discrimination, so long as members of the majority group are not expressly excluded. That is an attempt to strike a balance of protection for outreach training without the prohibition or exclusivity to which I take exception and which I believe, as would anyone who reflects on the situation, would be profoundly unwise.
    Mr. William Ross: The Minister has just said that the majority group is not excluded. By that, does he mean the Protestant community, or the majority group in the much smaller area in which the training system exists?
    Mr. King: I meant the latter.
    Mr. McNamara: By leave of the House, I should like to make a few points.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Member have the leave of the House to speak again? [Interruption.]
    Mr. McNamara: The Minister made a number of statements about me. Therefore, I think that I am entitled to reply to them with the leave of the House. After all, I have tabled an amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I assumed that leave had been given. I did not hear a dissentient voice.
    Mr. McNamara: The Minister said that I had sullied my tributes to him. In that case, if he is responsible, I withdraw what I said about him. All I would say is that frequently his Ministers came to the Standing Committee and contradicted what they had said earlier.
    I am sorry that the Minister cannot grasp the distinction between religion-exclusive and religion-specific. He said that he had not paid great attention to the detail of the Bill. Perhaps if he had done so, we would have had a better Bill.
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 71.

    Division No. 327]

    [10.8 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Alton, David

    Day, Stephen

    Amess, David

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Amos, Alan

    Dover, Den

    Arbuthnot, James

    Durant, Tony

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Fallon, Michael

    Ashby, David

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Atkinson, David

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Forman, Nigel

    Baldry, Tony

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Beggs, Roy

    Forth, Eric

    Bellingham, Henry

    Franks, Cecil

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Freeman, Roger

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    French, Douglas

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Gale, Roger

    Boswell, Tim

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bowis, John

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Gregory, Conal

    Brazier, Julian

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Bright, Graham

    Ground, Patrick

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

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

    Hague, William

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Burns, Simon

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Burt, Alistair

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Butler, Chris

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Butterfill, John

    Harris, David

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hill, James

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hind, Kenneth

    Carttiss, Michael

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Cash, William

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Chapman, Sydney

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Chope, Christopher

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Irvine, Michael

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Jack, Michael

    Couchman, James

    Janman, Tim

    Cran, James

    Jessel, Toby

    1121

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Ross, William (Londonderry E)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Kennedy, Charles

    Rowe, Andrew

    Kilfedder, James

    Ryder, Richard

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Latham, Michael

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Shersby, Michael

    Lightbown, David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lilley, Peter

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Speller, Tony

    McCrindle, Robert

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Maclean, David

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Stern, Michael

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Stevens, Lewis

    Mills, lain

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Summerson, Hugo

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Moss, Malcolm

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Thurnham, Peter

    Neubert, Michael

    Tredinnick, David

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Viggers, Peter

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Page, Richard

    Walden, George

    Paice, James

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Wallace, James

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Waller, Gary

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Portillo, Michael

    Wells, Bowen

    Raffan, Keith

    Wheeler, John

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Widdecombe, Ann

    1122

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Mr. Stephen Dorrell and Mr. John M. Taylor.

    Wood, Timothy

    NOES

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Ashton, Joe

    Lewis, Terry

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Battle, John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Beckett, Margaret

    McCartney, Ian

    Bell, Stuart

    McGrady, Eddie

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

    McNamara, Kevin

    Blunkett, David

    McWilliam, John

    Boateng, Paul

    Madden, Max

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Buckley, George J.

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Caborn, Richard

    Meale, Alan

    Callaghan, Jim

    Michael, Alun

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Clelland, David

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Cohen, Harry

    Nellist, Dave

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Patchett, Terry

    Cousins, Jim

    Pike, Peter L.

    Cryer, Bob

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Cummings, John

    Richardson, Jo

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

    Rogers, Allan

    Dixon, Don

    Short, Clare

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Skinner, Dennis

    Eadie, Alexander

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

    Fatchett, Derek

    Steinberg, Gerry

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

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Flannery, Martin

    Vaz, Keith

    Flynn, Paul

    Wall, Pat

    Foster, Derek

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Galloway, George

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Haynes, Frank

    Hinchliffe, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Home Robertson, John

    Mr. Nigel Griffiths and Mr. Allen McKay.

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Ingram, Adam

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 71 after clause 52, insert the following new Clause—

    REDUNDANCY
    "After section 37A of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 there is inserted—
    "Redundancy.
    37AA.—(1) This section applies where—

    (a) a practice relating to the selection of employees who may be dismissed as redundant is followed by an employer in pursuance of affirmative action and in accordance with an agreed procedure, and

    (b) the practice does not involve the application of any condition or requirement framed by reference to religious belief or political opinion, but has or may have the effect that the proportion of employees of a particular religious belief or political opinion who are selected is smaller than the proportion of employees not of that religious belief or, as the case may be, not of that political opinion who are selected.

    (2) The dismissal of an employee in pursuance of the practice is not by virtue of section 16(2) unlawful under any provision of Parts III and IV."
    Mr. Tom King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall also discuss the following: consequential amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment, in page 24, line 5, leave out 'or promotion' and insert 'promotion or redundancy'.
    Lords amendment No. 72.
    Mr. King: This amendment deals with the interaction of anti-discrimination legislation on redundancy programmes. If an affirmative action programme operated and redundancies occurred, it could lead to extremely difficult complications and, in certain circumstances, could interfere severely with normal industrial relations agreements.
    We are not prepared to allow selection for redundancy to be on the basis of religion. That selection would be discriminatory, illegal and contrary to the basic principles of fairness and equity which we have sought to maintain throughout the legislation. That is the background against which amendment No. 71 is constructed.
    I hope that the House will recognise the difficult issues involved. We believe that it is right to construct the amendment after earlier discussions in Committee and in another place on this matter. I hope that our approach strikes the fair balance that we seek, and I commend the amendment to the House.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: The Secretary of State introduced the amendment in his customary manner. He addressed it in his usual reasonable way and suggested that the Government have the balance about right on this occasion. I venture to suggest to the Secretary of State that, if he fully understood the consequences of the amendment, he would be a little more reticent in urging the House to accept it.
    We believe that the amendment does not address the problem that the Secretary of State would like it to address. It is not without significance that when the Bill was originally published, it contained no reference to redundancies. Only as a consequence of prodding by the Opposition, and in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) did the Government recognise that the problem could exist and agreed, after the probing and private discussions, to
    1124
    seek to bring forward later an amendment that would address the redundancy problem. Amendment No. 71 is a consequence of that further thought and discussion.
    There is now general agreement between the Government and the Opposition that redundancy policy, like promotion policy and recruitment policy to a company, can affect the structure of a company's work force. It does not take a genius to see that if an employer pursues an affirmative action programme to rectify imbalances within his work force and some time later is forced to make redundancies on a first-in, last-out basis, the likelihood is that redundancies will cause further inequalities in the balance of the work force and will negate the equality of opportunity that the employer has been trying to achieve.
    As the Secretary of State knows, the Opposition were concerned about that matter from the outset. We were concerned also to ensure that the redundancy policy should form an integral part of the periodic review that is required under clause 30. At the outset, Opposition Members presumed that the omission of redundancy was an oversight. When we pointed that out to the Government, they readily agreed to consider the issues. Amendment No. 71 does not deal with the problem that we identified—the absence of a duty on employers to consider redundancy procedures in the review. For that reason, if for no other, we oppose the amendment.
    Amendment No. 71 is seriously flawed in two respects. First, it appears that redundancy schemes are protected only when they are part of affirmative action. However, there is no reason why a redundancy policy should be part of an affirmative action programme. It is nonsense that an employer who discovers that existing practices are discriminatory cannot remedy them without engaging in an overall affirmative action programme. That does not take account of a situation in which an employer might already pursue an affirmative action programme and then discover that a redundancy policy is discriminatory.
    Secondly, hon. Members who have read the amendment will note that it refers to an agreed procedure. An agreed procedure is not defined in the Bill. Contrary to Government statements in the other place, there is no existing legal concept of agreed procedures. The amendment refers to a situation for which there is no legal basis. Does it involve an agreement with trade unions? I address that question to the Secretary of State. He will know that trade unions do not want that. If the amendment is accepted, it will be the basis of chaos.
    If we get an opportunity, Opposition Members will not only vote against amendment No. 71 but press amendment (a), which reverts to our original demand that employers include redundancy procedures in the periodic review required under clause 30.
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 68.

    Division No. 328]

    [10.28 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Ashby, David

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Atkinson, David

    Alton, David

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Amess, David

    Baldry, Tony

    Amos, Alan

    Beggs, Roy

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bellingham, Henry

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    1125

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Boswell, Tim

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Bowis, John

    Hunter, Andrew

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Irvine, Michael

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Jack, Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Janman, Tim

    Bright, Graham

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Burns, Simon

    Kennedy, Charles

    Burt, Alistair

    Kilfedder, James

    Butler, Chris

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Butterfill, John

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Latham, Michael

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Carrington, Matthew

    Lightbown, David

    Carttiss, Michael

    Lilley, Peter

    Cash, William

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Chope, Christopher

    McCrindle, Robert

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Maclean, David

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Maginnis, Ken

    Couchman, James

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Cran, James

    Mills, lain

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Day, Stephen

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Moss, Malcolm

    Durant, Tony

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Dykes, Hugh

    Nelson, Anthony

    Fallon, Michael

    Neubert, Michael

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Forman, Nigel

    Page, Richard

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Paice, James

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Forth, Eric

    Patnick, Irvine

    Franks, Cecil

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Freeman, Roger

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    French, Douglas

    Portillo, Michael

    Gale, Roger

    Raff an, Keith

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Ross, William (Londonderry E)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Gregory, Conal

    Ryder, Richard

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Ground, Patrick

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Hague, William

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Speller, Tony

    Harris, David

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Hind, Kenneth

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    1126

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Walden, George

    Stern, Michael

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Wallace, James

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Waller, Gary

    Summerson, Hugo

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Wells, Bowen

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Wheeler, John

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Thurnham, Peter

    Wood, Timothy

    Tredinnick, David

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Viggers, Peter

    Mr David Heathcoat-Amery and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    NOES

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Loyden, Eddie

    Ashton, Joe

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    McCartney, Ian

    Battle, John

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Beckett, Margaret

    McNamara, Kevin

    Bell, Stuart

    McWilliam, John

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

    Madden, Max

    Boateng, Paul

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Buckley, George J.

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Caborn, Richard

    Meale, Alan

    Callaghan, Jim

    Michael, Alun

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Clelland, David

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Cohen, Harry

    Mullin, Chris

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Nellist, Dave

    Cousins, Jim

    Patchett, Terry

    Cryer, Bob

    Pike, Peter L.

    Cummings, John

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

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

    Richardson, Jo

    Dixon, Don

    Rogers, Allan

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Salmond, Alex

    Eadie, Alexander

    Short, Clare

    Fatchett, Derek

    Skinner, Dennis

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

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Flannery, Martin

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Flynn, Paul

    Vaz, Keith

    Foster, Derek

    Wall, Pat

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Home Robertson, John

    Wray, Jimmy

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Ingram, Adam

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Nigel Griffiths.

    Lewis, Terry

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 72 to 77 agreed to.

  Schedule 2

    MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    Lords amendment: No. 78, in page 52, line 6, at end insert—
    "The Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I. 1976/1042 (N.I.15))
    27A. At the end of Article 49 of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 there is added—
    "(4) Any act which by virtue of this Article or Article 48 could not be unlawful under Parts III to V (or, in the case of an act falling within paragraph (3), under Article 15) is not by virtue of section 16(2)(b) of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 (indirect discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion) unlawful under any provision of Parts III and IV of that Act."
    27B. At the end of Article 63 of that Order there is added—
    "(3) Where a complaint is presented to an industrial tribunal under paragraph (1) and it appears to the tribunal that the act to

    1127
    which the complaint relates is one in respect of which (as being unlawful discrimination within the meaning of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976)—

    (a) a complaint could be made to the Fair Employment Tribunal for Northern Ireland under Part III of that Act; or

    (b) such a complaint has been made, but the proceedings under that Act have not been disposed of,

    the tribunal shall not proceed further under this Order in relation to the complaint unless all proceedings which can be taken under that Act in respect of the act have been disposed of.""
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Tom King.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 8, leave out from 'not' to 'unlawful' in line 11.
    Amendment (b), in line 11, leave out 'that Act' and insert
    `the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976'.
    Amendment (c), in line 26, at end add—
    `(4) Paragraph (3) does not apply unless the President or Vice-President has directed that the complaint under this Order shall be heard and determined by the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.'.
    Ms. Mowlam: We fear that the relationship between the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 and the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 will be jeopardised by Lords amendment No. 79. Indeed, it could bring the Sex Discrimination Order into disrepute and make it less effective in Northern Ireland. That causes great anxiety among women's groups in Northern Ireland, and the Equal Opportunities Commission in Northern Ireland, so we want the Government to consider the impact that Lords amendment No. 79 would have.
    The Secretary of State has argued tonight that he wants a balanced Bill, with a procedure that will work. On the basis of his own criteria, we want him to reconsider Lords amendment No. 79. New section 27A protects affirmative action programmes under the Sex Discrimination Order from challenge, on the grounds that they are indirectly discriminatory, under the Fair Employment Act. Without such provision, a single-sex training course in which the participants are predominantly from one side of the divide could be found to be discriminatory under the Fair Employment Act. We pushed for, and support, the first part of new section 27A. The see of Northern Ireland also pushed for it. We are still convinced, however, that it does not go far enough. Although it protects against indirect discrimination, it does not protect against direct discrimination, and that worries us.
    A problem with direct discrimination arises when a direct action scheme for women is undertaken to remedy a religious imbalance. This is the type of affirmative action which the Fair Employment Agency has recommended, most noticeably with respect to the clearing banks.
    If higher grades in a place of employment, or on a training programme, are filled predominantly by male Protestants and the lower grades are filled predominantly by female Catholics, an affirmative action scheme which is designed to improve the proportion of women who secure promotion would also lead to a rise in the number of Catholics. If left unamended, Lords amendment No. 79 would enable that to be challenged as discriminatory.
    1128
    The Lords amendment does not deal with the problem of direct discrimination, so it is ineffective and unacceptable. Indeed, it would be worse than that, as it would render unlawful the Fair Employment Commission's ability to pursue policies that were formerly pursued by the Fair Employment Agency. The legal uncertainty, especially in this part of the Bill, worries women in Northern Ireland. If employers are liable to challenges in the courts, progressive employers would be discouraged from taking action while those who are opposed to equality of opportunity for women will at best be able to use this as an excuse, possibly to turn back the clock. New section 27A is good as far as it goes, but we would like it to go much further in relation to direct discrimination. That is why we have tabled amendments (a) to (c). We think that they would deal with the problem much better than Lords amendment No. 79.
    The Minister has told us on previous occasions that these amendments are unnecessary because, under clause 52, employers will be able to use gender as a reference, provided it conforms to articles 48 and 49 of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. That argument has been used against it in the past. That is the only argument that the Government have made either in Committee or in the Lords, and if it is the only argument they advance now, it is incumbent on the Minister to answer two questions. First, if that argument holds, why is it necessary to put down an amendment to schedule 2 to deal with indirect discrimination? If the Government argument is valid, it can apply equally to indirect and direct discrimination.
    Secondly, we understand that clause 52 as amended by the Government would not afford schemes such as those that I have mentioned protection by the Fair Employment Commission. The Government have failed to provide an answer to those two matters in relation to new section 27A. The Minister has told us that new section 27B is very important and that he wants to see the process working practically. New section 27B deals with the procedural relationship between sex discrimination and religious discrimination cases. The difficulty with amendment No. 79 as it stands is that a complainant may bring a case under sex discrimination legislation to the industrial tribunal. That same complainant may also bring a case of alleged religious discrimination to the fair employment tribunal which rests with the same evidence. That means that two channels are open.
    Clause 6(2) of the Bill allows the president or vice-president of the tribunal discretion—that is the important word—to transfer the sex discrimination case to the fair employment tribunal where it may be heard concurrently with the fair employment case. The Government amendment to the schedule creates a problem in that, if the president or vice-president does not exercise the discretion provided, the sex discrimination case must

    1129
    be adjourned until all the proceedings under the fair employment legislation are completed. That worries us. Under the Sex Discrimination Order, that could happen immediately.
    Under the procedures that the amendment would introduce, sex discrimination cases must be adjourned. As a result, the amendment enshrines in the Bill structural discrimination against women, which could obviously lead to a case under the EC equal treatment directive of 1976. The Minister may say that that is not so, but he is well aware that the Equal Opportunities Commission has informed the Government of its intention to take exactly this issue to the European Commission if the Government amendment is not withdrawn.
    I shall outline some defects in the procedure that I have described. First, since the fair employment case would already have been decided, the sex discrimination case would, by default, be prejudiced. Secondly, it is obvious that, in such cases, overlapping facts will have to be established when the first case is held. However, the applicant would be at a disadvantage because she would not be able to secure the assistance of the Equal Opportunities Commission for the fair employment hearing, and that would put her at a disadvantage at the sex discrimination hearing.
    Thirdly, if the applicant wins the fair employment case, the decision will still be subject to appeal. As the Minister is well aware, taking a case to appeal in Northern Ireland can take anything up to two years, during which the sex discrimination case would continue to be pending. The applicant would then have the burden and the additional costs of a separate case, which would be based largely on the same set of facts.
    Fourthly, witnesses would be required to give evidence twice, with an interval of anything up to two years between the cases. For those reasons, we have tabled amendments (a) to (c), which would overcome the difficulties in relation to the fair employment tribunal.
    Mr. Tom King: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), who sought valiantly to make quite complicated matters seem simple and clear. She was discussing in particular the complicated matter of the interaction between religious discrimination at work, which the Bill is aimed at preventing, and sex discrimination. Some extremely complex scenarios can be constructed. Fortunately, the hon. Lady helped me through this and kindly gave us seven out of 10 for effort on new section 27A. This reflects what I chastised the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for not recognising—that we have tried to respond to what we thought were genuine concerns, as they have arisen.
    The history of the Bill is not one of the Government producing legislation, laying it down, defeating every effort to criticise it and not being willing to consider a review. The hon. Lady fairly recognised that the first part of Lords amendment No. 79 directly addresses the points that have been raised. We think that all of it does so. The hon. Lady is at least prepared to accept that new section 27A is a good start in the right direction. She then pinched my best line by saying that I would probably say that once again this is a question of balance and practicality. Her shrewdness anticipated my reply, because that it what it is. As she knows, it is the hallmark of the Bill.
    Against that background, I shall deal with the first interaction, which is the difficult one of how these cases
    1130
    will be dealt with. The hon. Lady drew attention to the problems which could arise, and immediately assumed that this would once again mean disadvantage for women faced with sex discrimination cases, which would be put back so that there were always delays and problems with cases going to appeal with a religious case as well. She spoke of the difficulties that this would impose.
    It may be helpful if I tell the House what the normal practice will be. A religious case will go to the fair employment tribunal, and a joint sex and religious case will also go, under the provisions of clause 6, to the president, who has the discretion to direct that the fair employment tribunal hear both cases together. A sex case in which a religious issue arises cannot reasonably proceed before the industrial tribunal because that tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the religious disputes. The way forward is for the individual concerned to lodge a case of religious discrimination with a fair employment tribunal, which can then hear and adjudicate on both cases. That is how we see it proceeding and we hope that that will be helpful. I accept, as the hon. Lady did in a most engaging way, that if one has these two elements interacting in this way, there can be complications, and the case will not be dealt with as expeditiously as it would if there were just one issue at stake. I hope that she feels that this is a genuine attempt to redress the matter.
    The hon. Lady then got into the complicated matter of protection from indirect but not direct discrimination. The Bill makes indirect religious discrimination illegal for the first time. The Government were pleased to accede to the Opposition's request to protect gender-specific training under articles 48 and 49 of the Sex Discrimination Act (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 from allegations of indirect religious discrimination. The territory into which the hon. Lady led us is extremely complex, and some hon. Members may not have found it easy to follow, despite her clarity.
    Indirect discrimination is complex, involving the application of a requirement or condition which is applied equally but is such that it has an adverse impact on a person, it cannot be shown by the respondent to be justifiable irrespective of religious belief and it is to the detriment of a person because he or she cannot comply with it. It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which an employer operating a gender-specific training course could not deploy the justifiable defence of the second condition that I have mentioned, on the grounds that a training course was justifiable to remedy a gender imbalance in a work force. The Government acceded to the commission's request in recognition of the complexity of indirect discrimination and to ensure that those operating gender-specific training would be protected from these complexities.
    We have sought to strike the balance to which the hon. Lady referred and to ensure protection for anti-discrimination measures. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) recognised that the legislation has some merits, and I am anxious to see it brought into effect as soon as possible.
    I hope that the hon. Lady will not press her amendment to a Division, and I commend the Lords amendment to the House.
    Amendment (a) proposed in lieu of the Lords amendment: line 8, leave out from 'not' to 'unlawful' in line 11.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 68, Noes 167.

    Division No. 329]

    [10.57 pm

    AYES

    Armstrong, Hilary

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    McCartney, Ian

    Battle, John

    McGrady, Eddie

    Beckett, Margaret

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

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

    McNamara, Kevin

    Boateng, Paul

    McWilliam, John

    Buckley, George J.

    Madden, Max

    Caborn, Richard

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Callaghan, Jim

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Meale, Alan

    Clelland, David

    Michael, Alun

    Cohen, Harry

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Cousins, Jim

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Cryer, Bob

    Mullin, Chris

    Cummings, John

    Nellist, Dave

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

    Patchett, Terry

    Dixon, Don

    Pike, Peter L.

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Eadie, Alexander

    Richardson, Jo

    Fatchett, Derek

    Rogers, Allan

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

    Salmond, Alex

    Flannery, Martin

    Short, Clare

    Flynn, Paul

    Skinner, Dennis

    Foster, Derek

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Vaz, Keith

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Wall, Pat

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Home Robertson, John

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Ingram, Adam

    Wray, Jimmy

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Lewis, Terry

    Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Frank Haynes.

    Loyden, Eddie

    NOES

    Alexander, Richard

    Bright, Graham

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Alton, David

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

    Amess, David

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Amos, Alan

    Burns, Simon

    Arbuthnot, James

    Burt, Alistair

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Butler, Chris

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Butterfill, John

    Ashby, David

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Atkinson, David

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Baldry, Tony

    Carrington, Matthew

    Beggs, Roy

    Carttiss, Michael

    Bellingham, Henry

    Cash, William

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Chope, Christopher

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Boswell, Tim

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Bowis, John

    Couchman, James

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Cran, James

    Brazier, Julian

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    1132

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Day, Stephen

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Nelson, Anthony

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Neubert, Michael

    Dover, Den

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Durant, Tony

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Fallon, Michael

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Page, Richard

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Paice, James

    Forman, Nigel

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Forth, Eric

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Franks, Cecil

    Portillo, Michael

    Freeman, Roger

    Raffan, Keith

    French, Douglas

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Gale, Roger

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Ross, William (Londonderry E)

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Rowe, Andrew

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Ryder, Richard

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Gregory, Conal

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Ground, Patrick

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Hague, William

    Speller, Tony

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Harris, David

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Steen, Anthony

    Hind, Kenneth

    Stern, Michael

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Hunter, Andrew

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Irvine, Michael

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Jack, Michael

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Janman, Tim

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Thorne, Neil

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Tredinnick, David

    Kennedy, Charles

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Kilfedder, James

    Viggers, Peter

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Walden, George

    Latham, Michael

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Lightbown, David

    Wallace, James

    Lilley, Peter

    Waller, Gary

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Wells, Bowen

    McCrindle, Robert

    Wheeler, John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Maginnis, Ken

    Wood, Timothy

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Mills, lain

    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and Mr. Tom Sackville.

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Lords amendments Nos.79 to 81 to.

Extradition Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
11.8 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a consolidation measure. The first general legislative recognition of extradition came in the Extradition Act 1870. The Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 is currently the main legislation governing extradition to the independent members of the Commonwealth and to the remaining colonies. Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 set out a new system of extradition to foreign states. The Bill consolidates this new legislation about extradition as between the United Kingdom and foreign states with the 1967 legislation about Commonwealth extradition.
In preparing the consolidation, the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission issued a report in which they made a number of recommendations for minor technical amendments in order that a satisfactory consolidation might be achieved.
The Bill has been passed in another place where, in the usual way, it was referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills. The Committee reported that the recommendations of the Law Commissions were necessary for the purpose of producing a satisfactory consolidation of the law, and that the Bill gives effect to those recommendations. The Committee adopted certain amendments to improve the form of the Bill. It concluded that, apart from giving effect to the Law Commissions' recommendations, the Bill was pure consolidation of the existing law.
As always, our thanks are due to the Law Commissions and to the draftsmen for continuing their important consolidation work and also to the Joint Committee for its careful scrutiny of the Bill on our behalf.
11.10 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wondered whether this consolidation measure on extradition would take care of people who have committed large-scale fraud in the City of London and have the money and ability to fly the coop, unlike many of the people who are committed for crimes in Britain. I am thinking particularly of Peter Cameron-Webb and Peter Dixon in the famous PCW fraud case, who managed to get away with about £40 million—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the hon. Member that when we debate a consolidation measure we consider not the merits of the law but merely whether the law as enacted should be consolidated. We cannot discuss the merits of cases arising out of the law.
Mr. Skinner: But there is a difficulty. Not too long ago—I do not know whether you are present, Mr. Deputy Speaker—during Question Time I asked the Attorney-General about this matter. He gave the impression that there might be opportunities to extradite these two gentlemen, who are living in the lap of luxury, from the United States under the extension of—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That matter cannot conceivably arise under this measure.
Mr. Skinner: This is a rather strange place, is it not? If it had been some old lady who had been caught stealing a tin of sardines in Marks and Spencer, I have no doubt that any consolidation measure would have allowed for that matter to be discussed, especially if she were thrown in gaol. But when it is the establishment—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has been here a long time. He knows that whatever may have happened in other circumstances with respect to old ladies in Marks and Spencer, he cannot discuss these matters on the measure that is before the House. It is a consolidation of the law that has been approved by Parliament. The lion. Member cannot discuss changes arising under that law.
Mr. Skinner: I am not altogether happy about the consolidation, for the good reason that I do not think that the Acts, consolidated or otherwise, have been doing the job correctly in terms of those City crooks—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Be that as it may, and the hon. Member may well be entitled to his opinions about the wisdom or otherwise of what has happened in the past, but Parliament has enacted that law and we cannot reopen those matters now. The hon. Member must address himself to the merits of consolidation. The only issue before the House is whether these measures should be consolidated.
Mr. Skinner: As a matter of fact, I am a little concerned about the fact that this consolidation is taking place. I may have to vote against this consolidation measure. I assume that I am still able to vote against consolidation measures.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: For the time being.
Mr. Skinner: "For the time being," says the Fascist opposite, head of the goose-stepping tendency.
I wonder whether the Solicitor-General can reply to my point about these crooks in the City of London who have got away with blue murder—£40 million, as a matter of fact. Will the Solicitor-General give us updated information about whether that five-year extradition period has been extended? Will it be possible under this consolidation measure—which we cannot discuss in principle, but which we can mention in passing—for these people to be apprehended? Can they be brought over here at a later date?
We have had a Cabinet reshuffle, so I suppose that we could say that it has been consolidated, or otherwise. Shall we have another statement from the Attorney-General under the consolidation measure? Is that possible or am I asking too much in requesting the Solicitor-General to explain why these people have got away with it? As this Government are supposed to believe in law and order with equality for everyone—which we know is not true, but let us assume that it is—will the Solicitor-General tell the people that those crooks in the City of London, such as those at Blue Arrow, Phillips and Drew, County NatWest and NatWest itself, could come under this consolidation measure?
I am throwing those cases in as an example in discussing the merits of consolidation generally, of course. I am not into discussing the merits of a particular measure, but whether, when we pass consolidation measures, it is a good idea to throw in a few anecdotes and examples to give the issue some colour and flavour so that we understand what it is about.

1135
Is the Solicitor-General likely to say that the Serious Fraud Office will deal with the crooks at County NatWest, and ensure that they do not fly the coop under this consolidation measure and that they are treated equally with ordinary citizens? Those are questions that hon. Members should ask on behalf of their constituents late at night in this quaint little place. Will the Solicitor-General respond to them? Of course he will not.
11.16 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I want to raise a couple of points about consolidation. The measure involves a number of orders and they seem to be affirmative orders in every case. That is, no doubt, a reflection of a consolidation. Affirmative orders were produced in previous consolidated legislation so, naturally, we expect that precedent to be followed. However, it is the practice of the House for affirmative as well as negative procedure orders to go to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Committee then reports to the House on the deficiencies, including, as the Solicitor-General knows, the question of the vires of the order. As some important issues are covered by the Bill, it is relevant that if the Committee reports that an order is ultra vires or defective in drafting, or that a Minister is making unusual use of powers, those reports should be taken into account.
When the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills examined the fact of consolidation and the incorporation of these affirmative procedures into the legislation, did it consider making it a requirement—which is not a requirement under Standing Orders of the House—that before the affirmative orders could be debated in the Chamber, the Solicitor-General and the House should have the opportunity to study the report from the Joint Committee?
The examination and scrutiny of delegated legislation in this House is abysmal. Only last week, we dealt with 15 orders—admittedly not by the affirmative procedure, because they were negative instruments which were being prayed against—in three hours. There was a report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for which the evidence was not available so the House could not consider it, although it should have done so. As the members of the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills are Members of the House and as they are getting measures together in one central document, they should have given some consideration to such reports and they should have incorporated other matters into the legislation. I shall be pressing for this more widely on every consolidation measure so that members of the Committee know that they should not consider only previous legislation—and I have no quarrel with their considering that.
The Committee should also incorporate the way in which the House has dealt with previous legislation. Would it not be reasonable for the Minister to comment, first, on whether he thinks that the House should have the reports before the orders provided for in this measure are debated and, secondly, whether the Committee considered framing the legislation so that there was no question of a repeat of what has happened in the past?
1136
On several occasions the Committee has undertaken work and taken evidence but because the Government Whips find the democratic process a bit of a nuisance and push to one side not only Labour Members of the Committee but Conservative Members—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult to see how these matters can conceivably arise from the measure that is before the House.
Mr. Cryer: Let me explain, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that clause 6 refers to an Order in Council relating to the arrangements set out on the Bill. Clause 32 deals with
"Orders in Council relating to colonies"
and clause 32(3) says:
"Any Order in Council under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
Clearly, we are talking about affirmative resolutions. What I am asking the Minister is whether, in deciding on the affirmative procedure, the Consolidation Committee considered ensuring that Ministers who are being given power under the Bill—[Interruption.] Effectively, the House throws such powers away; it does not care how Ministers exercise the powers. That happens in Standing Committee as a matter of course, so why cannot we ask whether members of the Consolidation Committee gave their minds to this process, instead of going through the routine in about half an hour and being glad to get out of the place—the usual path that the Consolidation Committee takes? In this instance, at least, we are legislating for people in difficult and controversial circumstances, and in my view, we do not examine the minutiae of some of the legislation that we pass as closely as we should.
In the light of the powers given in the Bill, my question to the Minister seems relevant. Did the Consolidation Committee say, "All right—we shall ensure that the Minister is subject to further scrutiny by making sure that the reports of the Committee appointed by the House to produce them are considered, instead of being thrown on to the legislative scrap heap so that the House cannot make a judgment on them"? I can see from your interested attitude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you think that the Minister could well comment on this matter.
11.22 pm
Mr. Gary Waller: I want to make two quick points in response to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). First, the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills, of which I am a member, goes through these matters in considerable detail, and for very much longer than the hon. Gentleman suggested. Secondly, some half a dozen members of the Labour party are members of that Committee and I do not think that a single one of them has attended the Committee during this Parliament.
11.23 pm
Mr. Frank Haynes: I am a little surprised at what is going on here; I really am. We as Members of Parliament are entitled to know what is going on, but it would seem that there is a secret society about, and I am pleased that I have listened to my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The problem that they have outlined worries me. We are ordinary Members of this

1137
Parliament, and we are entitled to know what is going on, yet it would seem that those who serve on the Committee are the only ones who know what is going on apart from the Minister, so I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will give us some answers tonight. I am pleased that I stayed to listen to my hon. Friends.
What drew me more than anything was the speech made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), because he is trying to protect his Committee. He was afraid and upset as a result of the remarks made by my hon. Friends. Their comments drew the hon. Member for Keighley to his feet. I hope that, because of what my hon. Friends have said, we will get some answers tonight.
I know the Solicitor-General quite well. He seems to be a fair and honest chap. I speak to him privately outside the Chamber and we talk about all manner of things. I have got to know him and I hope that he will stand up tonight and answer some of the questions that have been put to him. He should ignore the contribution from the hon. Member for Keighley. The questions that count were raised by Opposition Members.
I hope that the Solicitor-General will respond to the questions from my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover suggested that the Solicitor-General was fastened to his seat and did not want to get out of it. As a result of what has been said this evening, I hope that we will get the answers. I do not like secret societies. We are entitled to know what is happening in this place.
I represent 66,000 electors back home out of a population of 103,000. When I return to my constituency, I want to be able to tell them that this is not a secret society. My hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover and for Bradford, South have opened this matter up when it could just have slipped through. I congratulate them on returning to the Chamber to open this matter up because they have given me the opportunity to express my feelings about it. Mr. Solicitor-General, come to the Dispatch box and tell us what is happening.
11.26 pm
The Solicitor-General: It is a very special pleasure to be able to fulfil the wishes of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) who wants to know what is going on. I must disappoint him by disagreeing with his criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighly (Mr. Waller) who obviously knows what is going on and who played a detailed part on the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills.
I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Member for Ashfield that he is not living in a secret society. If his onerous duties as an Opposition Whip had given him time to pass through the Members Lobby, he might have swung away to his left—something that I know that he finds very difficult to do—and called at a window where he could have obtained a selection of documents including the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has an almost unrivalled knowledge of the procedure of the House, and that knowledge is greatly respected. It was therefore very unusual that he should not have stopped off at the Vote Office and equipped himself with the very detailed documents about the workings in this House and
1138
another place of the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills, in which he would have found informative answers to the questions that he raised.
Mr. Haynes: The Solicitor-General is pursuing a line which might cause me to go off him. I do not think that he has worked in the Government Whips Office. Yes, I work in the Opposition Whips Office. However, the Solicitor-General has not been there and he does not know what kind of work is involved. I do not have the time to run to the Vote Office every five minutes to see what is going on in there. I have other duties to perform on behalf of east midlands Members. I am a very busy chap and I am here all the time.
I frequently pass through the Members Lobby unless I am telling at the Division Lobby door. The Solicitor-General must understand that we are not all like him—we are not lucky enough to have everything put in front of us, in our laps, with a clear explanation of what is going on. I have to seize opportunities like this to find out. My hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover and Bradford, South have opened all this up. Come off it, Mr. Solicitor-General, be fair about this.
The Solicitor-General: The Ashfield Advertiser is due for a special treat with the hon. Gentleman's weekly contribution.
Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is no such thing as the Ashfield Advertiser. I thought that I should correct the hon. and learned Gentleman on that point.
The Solicitor-General: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for misnaming the newspaper in which he regularly writes.[Interruption.] The Mansfield CHAD, I am told, will have a particularly interesting article this week, drawn from the minutes of the proceedings of the Consolidation Committee. The hon. Gentleman has been kind to me, so I shall be kind to him and say that he has actually spoken to me occasionally on the Terrace, which was a special treat. I hope that he will do me another favour and send me a copy of his article drawn from the debate, and I shall read it and learn from it and know that our proceedings are understood far beyond the portals of this place, to the benefit of our fellow countrymen.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
Considered in Committee.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With the leave of the House, I will put together clauses 1 to 38.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. The Order Paper states that the remaining stages "may" be taken. It does not say that they will be taken. Therefore, I wonder whether any manuscript amendments are permitted, in view of the vague indication on the Order Paper and the unusual circumstances in which other stages may be taken. Naturally, with a lack of certainty, it is not easy for hon. Members to table amendments. Therefore, it seems to me that, as the point that I have raised could easily be altered in a tiny, modest amendment, perhaps a manuscript amendment could be moved so that we could progress more equitably and improve the Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no responsibility for what appears on the Order Paper. The House has agreed that we should be in Committee. I have received no notice of any amendments. With the leave of the House I will put together clauses 1 to 38.
Clauses 1 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Patnick.]
11.33 pm
Mr. Cryer: I much regret that the House was not afforded the opportunity to consider a manuscript amendment, as I like to see—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have no responsibility for what happened in Committee.
Mr. Cryer: I understand your difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether, at some time, you could have a word with the person who chaired the Committee for which you are not responsible and draw to his attention the omission to which I have drawn your attention. That would be a help. On Second Reading, the Minister did not answer my point. He referred me to some documents that explained the details of the working of the Consolidation Committee. That Committee produced a report, and hon. Members are very grateful for it.
My guess is that the Consolidation Committee did not consider incorporating a requirement that the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments should be available to the House before the provisions in the Bill are debated. If it did so, I am sorry that it did not press ahead with it and incorporate it in the consolidated measure with which we are dealing. If it had done so, it would have been an unprecedented move which I would have welcomed wholeheartedly.
As a member of the Committee is in his place—the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller)—I wish to draw his attention to the desirability of such a procedure. It would ensure that the work of Conservative and Labour Members who serve on the Committee—unfortunately, the SLD member of the Committee has not turned up since the 1987 general election and has resigned his membership of the Committee as a consequence of my drawing attention to the matter, and I have no doubt that the minority parties are searching for a replacement—is not ignored. They work hard and diligently.
Mr. Skinner: The SLD member of the Committee is Second Hand Rose.
Mr. Cryer: Perhaps my hon. Friend's interjection is not germane to the issue.
It is important that reports of the Committee's work should be available to the House. There should be a Standing Order that the reports should be available and
1140
that the Committee should report to the House before a debate takes place in the Chamber. At present, the procedure amounts to a matter of luck. It seems reasonable that I should register my concern. I hope that some sort of pressure will result in time in the incorporation of a requirement in primary legislation that covers secondary legislation.
I remind the House that under the Government, secondary legislation and statutory instruments have not diminished. In 1979, the new Conservative Government were committed to taking legislation off our backs. Since then they have increased the number of statutory instruments that come before us. There are more and more delegated powers, and these are often highly complicated in their nature. Sometimes their text is four or five times the length of the Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will understand that we are a long way from the Third Reading of this consolidation measure.
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful for your indulgence, as ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am merely saying that there should be some sort of check. The Minister has not answered the points that I have raised. I wish only to register the importance of the procedure that I am advocating.
11.37 pm
Mr. John Fraser: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). The House will recall that I spoke briefly to welcome the Bill.
The problem with British law is that it is far too complicated and found in far too many places. Schedule 2 tells us that the law on extradition, which is extremely important, is found in 27 different statutes. It was the idea of the leading Bevanite, Geoffrey Bing, that we should have a simple and speedy method of, to take the Bill as an example, getting rid of 27 statutes and replacing them with one statute. It was the view of Geoffrey Bing and his colleagues that the best way of achieving that would be to consolidate the law in a way which meant that there would be no substantial changes to it.
I do not disagree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South says when he expresses his concern about statutory instruments, but I wish to make my position clear. If we introduce amendments when we deal with consolidation, the major objective of bringing complex law into one statute so that it can be understood by practitioners and laymen alike will be lost. For that reason I was somewhat brief at the beginning of our consideration of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill Lords
Not amended (in the Standing Commmittee), considered.
[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill Lords
  Clause 1

    DEEDS AND THEIR EXECUTION
    11.39 pm
    Mr. James Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 19, after `(3)' insert—
    'Except as provided for in subsection 3(A) below'.
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 2, in line 27, add at end—
    '3(A) The provisions in subsection (3)(a) above, insofar as they require the presence of and attestation by witnesses, should not apply to the execution of deeds of covenant made in favour of a charity'.
    Mr. Wallace: The amendment would exempt from the provisions of the Bill, which substantially enacts the recommendations set out in report No. 163 of the Law Commission on deeds and escrows—I hope that I have pronounced that correctly—a provision which would exempt deeds of covenant executed in favour of a charity.
    The reason for the amendment is relatively simple. As the Bill stands, it will be necessary for deeds of covenant to be attested by two witnesses or in the presence of a witness who attests the signature of the person who is executing the deed. Several charities have expressed the fear that, as the amounts given by many people are relatively small, if those people had to go through the additional procedural requirement of having the deed attested, they might be discouraged from executing such deeds, thus depriving many charities of sums on which they depend to keep their good works going.
    Barnardo's in particular has made representations to my hon. Friends and myself that that could have a considerable impact on their receipts. It has been estimated that the average donation by covenant is £32·95, which the House will recognise is a modest sum, but when that amount is grossed up over many people, it amounts to the lifeblood of many charities.
    There are several reasons why people might hesitate to execute such deeds if they had to require the presence of a witness. The witness may be a member of the family or a close friend, and the individual may feel embarrassment. Some people have a natural modesty about giving money to charity because it is the sort of thing that they like to do anonymously and they would not necessarily want their friends or relatives to know. People might be reluctant to make covenants that had to be witnessed, as they might feel that the person who was being asked to witness the deed would feel left out in any testamentary succession.
    Whatever the motives, many charities feel fear and apprehension. We have consulted many bodies, including the Charities VAT and Tax Reform Group, which shares the concern that charities could lose a substantial amount of money. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention; I concede that, in a number of successive
    1142
    Budgets, they have made specific proposals to encourage charitable giving and have done some things to help the fiscal position of charities.
    Having looked at the Law Commission's report, I must say that it is not evident that this position has been considered, and I do not believe that to date—perhaps the Solicitor-General will be able to inform the House on this point—that potential problem has been given adequate consideration.
    As charities could be seriously affected by this measure, I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the amendment which, albeit in small amounts, could mean cumulatively hundreds of thousands of pounds for charities. If the Government cannot accept the amendment, I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to say something positive so that the many charities that genuinely fear the consequences of the measure will have some reassurance.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for moving this short amendment and for giving us the chance of a short debate to clarify the Government's position on this matter. There has been an opportunity to consider correspondence with the charities that he mentioned. I am grateful for what he said about the actions of this Government over several years in taking steps greatly to encourage charitable giving. The Bill's objective is to put nothing in the way of that.
    If one concentrates for one moment on what the hon. Gentleman's amendment would seek to do and then on what is current practice and on what is sensible, one quickly finds the answer to the point that he has raised. Therefore, I hope that what I say will quickly set minds at rest.
    The effect of the amendment is that deeds of covenant in favour of a charity would not need to be witnessed and attested, but they would still have to be signed and delivered, and it would still have to be clear on the face of the instrument that it was intended to be a deed. Even for this amendment, it would be recognised that there must be formalities, which are important because the giver is creating a document which has legal effect and also, through the Revenue, gives rise to tax relief.
    What the Bill proposes, and what the Law Commission after much careful thought decided was sensible, was that, whereas in the past, a Bill had to be signed, sealed and delivered, but did not have to be witnessed—the question of sealing frequently gave rise to difficulties and to failure to receive tax relief—in future a deed should make it clear on its face that it was a deed and that it should be witnessed and delivered.
    The practicality of witnessing, which the amendment seeks to remove, is well illustrated by the fact that every covenant that hon. Members on both sides of the House have signed already contains lines for witnesses' signatures. It has become almost standard practice for such deeds to be witnessed, although that is not a legal requirement. Therefore, the Law Commission recommended that we should bring the formalities of the Bill into line with contemporary standards—yes, keeping some formality and, yes, providing safeguards, but doing it in a way that people will very well understand.
    Mr. Wallace: I accept that my principal training is in the law of Scotland and I am not over-acquainted with

    1143
    English provision. Therefore, will the Solicitor-General clarify the position for me, and perhaps for other hon. Members? If a deed—we are talking about deeds which very often involve relatively small amounts—is to be effective, does it need to be sealed, or can it be effective without attestation and sealing?
    The Solicitor-General: A deed, to be effective, so that it could be enforced at law, requires to be signed, sealed and delivered. Although the sealing has now become very much a formality, and tends to have a little circle, or a little circle with the letters "LS" in the middle of it in place of the type of seal which applied in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, when people were less familiar with writing and wanted to have some other way of marking their formal approval to a document, it is, nevertheless, a requirement today. However, it has become an outdated formality and it will cease to be a requirement, so that difficulty will be removed.
    It is a matter of balance and judgment, but I urge upon the House the argument that the Law Commission has thought about the matter carefully and that we have had the opportunity for further thought in correspondence with a number of charities that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has mentioned. I recommend to the House that the Bill has got it right and that the amendment should not be accepted.
    Mr. Wallace: I have listened carefully to what the Solicitor-General has said, and I accept that some thought has been given to the matter. The amendment was tabled principally as a response to the concern of a number of charities. I hope that, if experience suggests that the system proposed in the Bill, which will no doubt shortly be enacted, will result in any diminution of the amounts being given to charities, the matter will be the subject of further consideration.
    Having said that I am a Scotsman, I can tell the House that, in Scotland, if one writes a holograph and signs one's own name, that is quite effective. Perhaps that is something for our English colleagues to learn.
    Amendment negatived.
    Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    11.48 pm
    Mr. Hugo Summerson: There is a small matter in the Bill on which I am not altogether clear. Clause 2, begins:
    "A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where contracts are exchanged, in each".
    A little later, the clause says:
    "This section does not apply in relation to",
    inter alia,
    "a contract made in the course of a public auction".
    I am not a lawyer, but I am a chartered surveyor, and I have been to many public property auctions. If you went to such a public auction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would have a catalogue in which you would find general and special conditions of sale. We all know that, in an auction, at the fall of the hammer, the contract is made. There is
    1144
    then a memorandum that has to be signed. I believe that it forms part of the contract, in which are incorporated the general and special conditions of sale.
    I think that I am right in saying that a contract can be void for uncertainty. It occasionally happens in property auctions that someone sticks his hand up, the property is knocked down to him, and he disappears. Here, we have a provision which seems to remove any confirmation of a sale. There seems to be a discrepancy. I do not understand it, and I should be most grateful for some clarification.
    11.50 pm
    Mr. John Fraser: The Bill has gone through all its stages rapidly, but it is important—more important than was first made out.
    The arrangements about sealing change the law from that which was mediaeval to that which is modern. I am not absolutely convinced that witnesses were necessary to sealing, but I understand that the reason is that the incidence of fraud is fairly high, and having a witness is likely to reduce it. We are glad that the other formalities have gone and that we are to follow what is in reality the practice.
    The law has always been arcane in respect of the rule that contracts have to be evidenced in writing rather than to be in writing. People have found that they have made contracts by accident, and they have not always been helped by judges who have made decisions about these matters without knowledge of how the world works outside the court.
    We also have the repeal of the rule in Bain v. Fothergill. I think that that redeems a Conservative party pledge. What I hope will flow from the passage of the Bill is a change in the nature of conveyancing. The vendor's solicitors will in future spend much longer preparing the contract package and examining their own title, and the purchaser will not have to find a catch in the contract.
    I hope that the practice of vendors having to look at the title, which they do not have to do at the moment, will expand, so that when a purchaser receives a contract, it is as complete as it can possibly be. The result is that conveyancing will be simpler and cheaper. This is an important Bill, and I hope that it will not pass unnoticed.
    11.52 pm
    The Solicitor-General: I am grateful for what the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has just said. This is an important Bill. It is short, but it modernises the law in extremely sensible and practical ways.
    With regard to detailed law, I must refer my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) to his learned societies. It is not for me to give him advice. It must be very clear, as I am sure he will appreciate when he reads the Bill at his leisure, that, at an auction, the sale is completed at the fall of the hammer; the opportunity for writing and signature would not be appropriate, so there is that exclusion.
    This is a very sensible little Bill. It has passed quickly, but not without careful thought, and I commend it to the House.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  CONTINENTAL SHELF BILL [LORDS]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee: reported, without amendment.
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): To save the time of the House, I propose to put together the Questions on the four motions to approve the statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  Statutory Instruments, &c.

    URBAN DEVELOPMENT
    That the Leeds Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989, dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
    That the Leeds Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (General) Order 1989, dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
    That the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Port of Tyne Authority and British Railways Board) Order 1989, dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
    That the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Various Local Authorities) Order 1989, dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]
    Question agreed to.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Secretary Wakeham be discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) and Sir Geoffrey Howe be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Royal Army Veterinary Corps, Melton Mowbray
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
11.55 pm
Mr. Michael Latham: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) who is a newly appointed Whip, has earned his money tonight.
I am glad to have this opportunity to debate the future of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps, Melton Mowbray. The debate is especially relevant now because, if certain ideas floating around the Ministry of Defence were to be accepted by Ministers, the RAVC, Melton Mowbray, would have no future at all. As I have told three successive Defence Ministers—I welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces to the debate—the RAVC has long believed that some officials in the Ministry of Defence have for many years wanted to close the operation at Melton Mowbray, and have not hesitated to say who they are. I look to my hon. Friend to ensure that such fears are groundless.
I say to the Minister in the most unmistakable terms that the RAVC is an integral part of Melton Mowbray. It has been there with the horses as a remount centre since 1903 and has been continually used for horses since that time. The Army dog training school, which was already under RAVC command, has been in Melton Mowbray since 1946. The current facilities in Melton Mowbray are the Army veterinary hospital which deals with all horse and dog surgery in the Army. It has facilities for hospitalising 24 horses and seven ill dogs. It has custom-built equine and canine operating theatres, with all the necessary support facilities, as well as an equine and canine radiographic and medical treatment complex.
The average daily in-patient figures last summer were 10 horses and four dogs, and a further 10 horses and six dogs were treated daily as out-patients. That excludes routine inspections, vaccinations or radiography. The Army school of equitation trains equitation instructors, supervisors for mounted units and, of course, the horses. There are extensive stabling provisions, an indoor riding school and facilities for field and obstacle exercises, many of which have been extensively refurbished in the last five years. Training courses continue virtually all year.
The Army school of farriery was purpose-built in 1962, and is recognised as one of the best teaching facilities in Europe. It trains Army farriers and also shoes the Army's horses. The remounts depot at Melton Mowbray deals each year with 60 to 70 young, unbroken or partially broken horses which are purchased by the Army. They are put to grass in Melton Mowbray and vaccinated, and become accustomed to being handled before being passed to regiments such as the Household Cavalry or the King's Troop, Royal Horse Artillery. Sick or tired horses also receive rest and recuperation at grass at Melton.
Of course, there is also the dog school. It supports 1,219 Army-trained dogs worldwide, of which 20 per cent. require to be replaced each year. The school trains both dogs and their handlers. More than 550 student handlers and between 240 and 260 dogs are trained each year. However, the staffing establishment remains small. The military personnel at Melton Mowbray are currently 135,

1147
of whom 53 are members of the Women's Royal Army Corps. There are 33 civilians. Among the facilities available are free access for the Army to about 40,000 acres of commercial property and surrounding farmland, including many public and private premises in the town, which are made freely and willingly available by local people for specialised dog training.
Within the camp itself there is a purpose-built RYPE village on a 10-acre site, with a security fence, for training in arms and explosives searches. There are also 250 acres available for dog training within the estate. Quite deliberately, horses, cattle and sheep are kept grazing there, as that is an essential part of Army dog training. There is a former gun test range at Asfordby about a mile away, and 40 acres in size, which also provides important training facilities.
As there is such a formidable infrastructure of training and achievement, and such excellent results are being achieved, one might think that it would all be the subject of congratulations. Instead, there has been a relentless and restless determination by the Ministry of Defence to scrap it, or initially to merge the dog training with that of the Royal Air Force. The Ministry first studied the proposed merger, and rejected it, in 1966, but it dug up the roots again to inspect them in 1972, 1975 and 1977, and on each occasion confirmed the previous result.
In 1978, the Minister told the former Expenditure Committee that it would be a waste of time to re-examine the matter. However, its fingers remained itchy, and in March 1982, there was yet another review, which recommended a joint dog training school at RAF Newton and RAF Syerston, and that the horse activities at Melton should be contracted out, with the entire site being sold. Those drastic proposals fell apart in 1983, when a test trial of civilian dog handling proved a failure, and further studies found that moving the equine facilities was either impractical or more expensive, or both.
There were further studies on dogs alone in 1983, 1984 and 1985. In 1985, we actually got a decision, which was announced to Parliament by Lord Trefgarne and my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), who was then the Minister. On 9 July 1985, my hon. Friend announced in answer to me that all service dogs would be trained at RAF Newton by 1989, but under the command of an RAVC officer. He added that the equine activities would remain unchanged at Melton and
"There are no plans to transfer these functions to any other location in the foreseeable future."
He added that the Army was grateful to the people of Melton Mowbray for their support of the RAVC and the pride that they had shown by granting the corps the freedom of the borough in 1977—an occasion at which I was present. My hon. Friend the then Minister said:
"We look forward to the continuance of this happy relationship."—[Official Report, 9 July 1985, Vol. 82, c. 404.]
That was not good enough for me, and I reported the whole matter to the Comptroller and Auditor General, in my capacity as a member of the Public Accounts Committee.
There were then further Ministry studies, in 1986, 1987 and 1988, following ministerial recommendations or visits by Ministers to the RAVC. We have now had 12 separate
1148
investigations since 1966. As the former permanent secretary, Sir Clive Whitmore, admitted to me at the Public Accounts Committee hearing on 30 March 1987:
"We must have spent a great deal of money in the past investigating the possibilities of rationalising dog training."
He can say that again.
We now have the latest proposal by Peat, Marwick, McLintock to close the RAVC altogether, and set up a service animal centre at RAF Syerston, but with administrative support at RAF Newton. I have not seen the report, so I do not know what expertise, if any, its authors had in equine or dog training. First, the RAF has no horses so all the input from the horses to the service animal centre would come from the Army, but for 20 from the Marines.
Secondly, the RAF has no vets, and neither have the Marines. RAF Newton uses a civilian vet who visits twice a week, and he was living 100 milies away at the time of the 1985 inquiry. Only the RAVC has full-time military personnel in uniform who are qualified vets. There is no equine and canine hospital at Syerston, but there is one at Melton.
There is no equitation or farriery school at Syerston, although there is at Melton. There is no built-up urban environmental training facility at Syerston, which is a remote rural location. There are no officers' married quarters there—only a few NCOs' and airmen's quarters. There are no shops or welfare facilities, and the nearest doctor is seven miles away. All these things are fully and immediately available in Melton Mowbray, a growing town of nearly 30,000 people.
As for Syerston, one needs to cross the busy A46 road to get to the adjoining land where any training would be done. Syerston will need to provide all these facilities, or place them at RAF Newton and then transport the animals eight miles—wastefully—by road every day, a practice condemned on operational grounds by the Director of Army Veterinary Services in 1985. Incidentally, his professional report was suppressed by the then director of personnel, who declined to attach it to the working party report in 1985. I have seen the documents confirming that that was so.
No notice has been taken of the separate report by an independent expert, Mr. Pagliero, who was originally commissioned by Mr. R. L. Facer, who is still advising Ministers on this whole affair. Mr. Pagliero concluded that the Army's dog training was better than that of the RAF and that the work would be better done at Melton. Needless to say, the RAF and the MOD rejected this advice from an independent consultant, because it did not produce the conclusions that they wanted to hear.
As far as I can see, there are no operational advantages in the proposed course of action. I see very little point in a joint service animal school, anyway. The Army and RAF dogs are trained in different ways for different purposes. The different training techniques will have to continue separately, so why mess around with the present arrangements?
As for the horses, it is quite absurd to contemplate—even Lord Trefgarne did not—moving the horse facilities somewhere else, when they are working very well at Melton and would need total rebuilding in another place. I hope that the MOD also realises that the 33 civilian staff would probably be made redundant, since they are highly

1149
unlikely to be able to move to Newton or Syerston. Yet they are highly trained and skilled, and used to dealing with animals.
Apart from all the new building infrastructure which will be needed, there will have to be new kennels, new paddocks and new fencing, and cattle and sheep will have to be available for training and for effective pasture management. The RAVC is also converting some of its buildings in order to move a laboratory to Melton Mowbray from Aldershot. What is to happen to it? Will my hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that he will give the highest priority to the expert veterinary advice which he receives on the project? That should be a paramount consideration.
The only possible reason for this upheaval seems to be the hope that the whole Melton site can be sold off for housing development. I have already explained to my hon. Friend why that is very unlikely; but I will not do the job of the consultant to the developers by explaining why here and now. If the Ministry wants to rationalise its estate, as the PAC has frequently urged it to do, let it start with all that wasteful property in London to which the National Audit Office drew attention in recently published reports. Perhaps the MOD could raise umpteen millions by selling the main building in Whitehall, which churned out a dozen reports on the RAVC in 20 years but produced no action.
I suggest that my hon. Friend contemplate what happened to the proposed move of the radar section at RAF North Luffenham to RAF Henlow; or the proposed move of the aviation medical centre at North Luffenham to RAF Mount Batten; or the proposed joint service music school. All these published plans fell apart under serious scrutiny by the NAO, the PAC and the Ministry itself. I strongly suspect that the same will happen with this cock-eyed scheme, and it might save a lot of staff time to drop it now.
I ask my hon. Friend to think of the effect on service morale of all this fiddling about. The RAVC has very important military duties to perform—against terrorism in Northern Ireland, and in Germany, Hong Kong and Cyprus. It does no good for the morale of the corps if it feels that its main unit at Melton is under threat. Many former members of the corps retire in the Melton Mowbray area, where they are popular and valuable members of the community. The RAVC unit makes a fine presence at the annual Remembrance day parade, and the commandant always takes the salute. In Melton, queen of the shires, where horses and dogs are a way of life for so many, the RAVC is an honoured and integral part. Only last April, the mayor of Melton and the leader of the council wrote in glowing terms to the Adjutant General of the Army about the RAVC.
My advice to my hon. Friend is to dump the plans. If he must proceed with an animal joint service centre, he should ask himself which unit has a veterinary hospital, a ripe village, 40,000 acres of free land, a farriery and equitation school and unrivalled expertise with dogs and horses. The answer, of course, is Melton Mowbray. We are proud of our vetcamp, as we call it. Let the new centre for all the armed services be based there, if there has to be one at all, but the best course of action would be the status quo, as was recommended to Ministers by Admiral Herbert, Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff in December 1984.
1150
The present arrangements work well, so leave them alone. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it—a good message for a Conservative Government.
12.10 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Michael Neubert): The House will wish to join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on his persistence in drawing our attention to his constituents' views on any proposal to transfer the Royal Army Veterinary Corps away from Melton Mowbray. Not only has he raised the matter tonight, but he has closely monitored the progress of studies over many years by raising the matter in this House, by meeting me and my predecessors and by correspondence. Thanks to my hon. Friend I am in no doubt of the ties of mutual respect and affection which are the hallmarks of the relationship between the people of Melton Mowbray and the members of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps. I join my predecessors in acknowledging this and in expressing my thanks to the people of Melton Mowbray for the warm support which they have always given to the corps. The spirit which has developed between the borough council, the people of the town and the Army would be impossible to overlook or lightly to cast aside.
However, it is our duty and our policy to ensure value for money over all defence activities, particularly those which support our front-line commitments. I am sure my hon. Friend, as a distinguished member of the Public Accounts Committee, would wish to encourage the Ministry of Defence in this direction—he has already indicated that tonight—especially where rationalisation of similar activities between one service and another enables us to manage the defence estate more efficiently and to obtain receipts from the sale of valuable land.
The size of the defence estate depends on the needs of the services and the procurement executive, but we are determined that it should be no larger than is necessary for the services to carry out their tasks efficiently and effectively. We vigorously pursue opportunities to dispose of land and buildings no longer required for defence purposes. In 1987–88 we raised more than £75 million by such sales and last year we doubled that figure to £150 million. Those sums are in addition to more than £400 million achieved in sales of land since 1979.
Ministry of Defence landholdings of some 600,000 acres account for about 1 per cent. of the total area of the United Kingdom. Some four fifths of that MOD land, however, is accounted for by airfields and training areas, and our main opportunities for reduction and rationalisation are therefore likely to occur in the remaining area, occupied by facilities such as depots, workshops and barrack accommodation. We are always seeking to identify opportunities for rationalisation in those areas, and decisions on future deployments take account of the estate costs, although our main consideration must be and remain the operational needs of the armed forces.
It was against that background that we decided, as my predecessor Lord Trefgarne announced in another place, to rationalise Army and RAF dog training in one location. As we have heard, the Army trains dogs and handlers at Melton Mowbray. The RAF trains dogs and handlers at RAF Newton, some 17 miles from Melton Mowbray. The tasks for which the dogs are trained at these two centres

1151
have many similarities. Both services train dogs in guarding and in deterring and detecting intruders. Both services develop the scenting ability of dogs in order to detect the presence of drugs or explosives, and both services train dogs and handlers to a very high standard. That is not to say that there have been no differences in the training, but they seemed to be outweighed by the similarities.
The case for rationalisation in one location was compelling, therefore, but there remained doubts as to which location was the most suitable. Because of doubts expressed about whether RAF Newton, together with the nearby RAF Syerston, was the most economical location, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), now the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, commissioned consultants to undertake a review.
The consultants' study has been very thorough. They visited not only Melton Mowbray and RAF Newton but a number of operational units where dogs are employed, including a unit in Northern Ireland. They did this so that they could understand clearly what was expected of the personnel and animals trained at the two centres. They then studied every activity which led to the provision of the trained animal and trainer. Those included the testing and health checks of dogs, arrangements for their collection, rejection rates during training, the training syllabuses, and feeding and veterinary care of the animals. They discussed capital requirements with the training authorities, the service quartering branches and the Property Services Agency. They sub-contracted the assessment of development potential of the sites and of the prospective values to a firm of valuers with particular expertise in those matters. Representatives of the firm visited the sites and discussed development potential with officers of the responsible planning authorities.
At the end of that very thorough study, the consultants confirmed the validity of the decision taken by my noble Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces in 1985 that the sensible way to provide dog training in the future was to form a joint service school at RAF Syerston and RAF Newton. The consultants, however, have also taken account of the fact that dog and handler training is not the only activity undertaken at Melton Mowbray. The RAVC centre is also responsible for training horses and equitation instructors, as well as being the depot of the corps, responsible for the administration and management of officers, men and women serving in the Royal Army Veterinary Corps. The consultants have shown that considerably greater savings can be achieved by also providing equine and equitation training and the RAVC depot facilities at the joint school, thus forming a service animal centre.
The investment appraisal carried out by the consultants shows that, while substantial savings in operating costs can be achieved by creating a service animal centre, the scale of the savings in capital costs depends on the value placed on land disposals. The consultants advised that there are prospects for development of the land now occupied by the RAVC centre at Melton Mowbray. My announcement, in my reply to my hon. Friend, on 13 July, of the intention to form a service animal centre enables my Department to enter into consultations with the local planning authority.
1152
However, as I also said in my reply of 13 July, a further factor which must be borne in mind is the study into the future of the whole RAF estate. That study has the objective, to which I have already referred, of ensuring that we manage our estate as efficiently as possible and dispose of that which is no longer needed. We shall need to consider the consultants' recommendations concerning dog training and the formation of a service animal centre in the light of the outcome of the study into the RAF estate, particularly, of course, in so far as it affects Syerston and Newton.
A further factor touching on the use of Syerston is the effect on present activities there. RAF Syerston is currently used for gliding, including the training of gliding instructors for the air cadet corps. The provision of flying experience, including gliding, is a highly effective way of fostering young people's interest in careers in the Royal Air Force. The consultants' recommendation to form a service animal centre at Syerston assumed that the area there needed for facilities for gliding would be reduced. We are considering this, bearing in mind the need to ensure that equine and canine-related training on the one hand, and gliding instruction on the other, can be safely and satisfactorily collocated.
Despite the further work involved in deciding how best to implement the consultants' main recommendation, we should not lose sight of the benefits already emerging from the studies. Recommendations were also made concerning the most economical means of procuring dogs and the possibility of further civilianisation of support staffs. These recommendations are being considered by the services. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the implementation of certain other of the consultants' recommendations, concerning the common adoption of best practices, is expected to save at least £4 million in running costs over the next 10 years. This alone provides a remarkably good return on the effort we have invested in our studies on this subject. If we can now resolve the question of the location of the service animal centre, I am confident that we shall be able to provide training in the future that maintains existing high standards while savings to the defence budget accrue.
It would be wrong of me not to acknowledge, before concluding, that the uncertainty regarding the future arrangements for training dogs and handlers has given rise to some understandable concern among the people working at the RAVC depot Melton Mowbray and at RAF Newton. It is a great tribute to them all that they have nevertheless continued to maintain the highest standards. The results of some of the training provided at Melton Mowbray and at Newton will have been evident to the public in the very high standards of ceremonial drill and displays, for which the services are rightly renowned, but much of the work of dogs and their handlers is conducted in circumstances far less comfortable than display arenas, be it in the guarding of defence installations or in the search for drugs and explosives.
The operational effectiveness of dogs and handlers is of an equally high standard and I am glad to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the RAVC and the RAF provost branch alike on the excellent standards that they consistently maintain in training and handling service animals. I can assure them that I have very much in mind the need to resolve the present uncertainties as soon as possible.

1153
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the interest that he has shown, and I can assure him that I shall take full account of his views and advice when I make my decision.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Twelve o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Civil Servants (Resignations)
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants of assistant secretary level and above have resigned from the Civil Service in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Ryder
  Numbers of civil servants of unified grade 5 (assistant secretary equivalent) and above who have resigned from the Civil Service in each of the last 10 years are shown in the table. The numbers of resignations each year represent less that 2½ per cent. of the total staff numbers.

  Unified grades 1 to 5

  Numbers resigning

  1979

  18

  1980

  27

  1981

  25

  1982

  38

  1983

  31

  1984

  37

  1985

  39

  1986

  31

  1987

  37

  1 1988

  49

  1 Provisional.

  Import Penetration
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each industry listed in the tables given in replies to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, 14 November 1988, Official Report, columns 401–2 and 412, concerning import penetration in certain industries, the increase in the volume of imports and exports to the four areas between 1979 and 1987 together with the gross and net fixed capital investments.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  Constant price trade-by-industry data are not available on an area basis. Detailed information on fixed capital expenditure by individual sectors of industry may be conveniently found in the summary volumes of the annual census of production.

  Finished Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing his best estimate of the value and increase in volume, based on 1985= 100, and United Kingdom output of finished manufactures in 1973, 1978, 1981, 1985, 1987 and the current year to date and the value and volume of (i) imports of intermediate goods, (ii) United Kingdom
  698
  output of finished manufactures less imports of intermediate goods and (iii) exports of finished manufactures.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  A current price estimate for the value of United Kingdom output of finished manufactures is not readily available. An index at constant prices is provided in the table. Figures for imports of intermediate goods and exports of finished manufactures may be found in the latest annual supplement to the monthly review of external trade statistics and the latest balance of payments press notice, both of which are available in the Library.

  Estimated volume index of output of finished manufactures

  (1985 = 100)

  Year

  1973

  104·0

  1978

  103·9

  1981

  90·9

  1985

  100·0

  1987

  105·0

  1 1989

  115·4

  1 To date.

  Note: Finished manufactures have been taken to comprise consumer and investment goods.

  Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing (i) for ratio 3 of the export sales ratio in the years 1975, 1979 and 1987 for manufacturing less divisions 21, 23, 24, 41/42, 46 and 47, (ii) the increase in the value of United Kingdom sales and exports for this group of industries less the value of imports of intermediate goods divided between them in the same ratio and (iii) the estimated increase in volume of net output and net exports for this group after this adjustment.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  Figures constructed from current price data are estimated to be as follows. Comparable data at constant prices could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Exports as a proportion of manufacturers' sales

  Per cent.

  Manufacturing less divisions 21, 23, 24, 41/42, 46, and 47

  1975

  33

  1979

  34

  1987

  43

  Value of United Kingdom sales and exports less the total value of imports of intermediate goods divided between them pro-rata

  £ billion

  United Kingdom

  Manufacturing less divisions 21, 23, 24, 41/42, 46 and 47

  Home Sales

  1975

  38

  1979

  74

  1987

  120

  Exports

  1975

  141

  1979

  26

  1987

  49

  Earnings Rule (Abolition)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the implementation of the abolition of the earnings rule.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  From 1 October 1989, existing pensioners who already have their pension reduced because of their earnings will be awarded the full pension to which they are entitled. Those who have deferred taking their pension will be offered the opportunity to claim it or to continue deferment. The Department's objective is that as many as possible of those who wish to do so will be able to draw their pension by Christmas. In any event, payments will be backdated to 1 October.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Senior Management Development Programme
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service, what has been the enrolment on the Civil Service senior management development programme for the last five years.

  Mr. Luce
  The senior management development programme was launched in September 1985. The approximate numbers of participants at 31 March of each year were:

  Participants

  1986

  2,600

  1987

  3,000

  1988

  4,300

  1 1989

  4,500

  1 Provisional figure.

  Next Steps Initiative
  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how the next steps initiative is progressing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The next steps initiative is taking firm root. There are now eight agencies set up and the project manager expects that by this time next year there will be 20 or more established. Over 30 areas of Government activity covering around one third of the Civil Service, have been announced as candidates for agency status. These are all listed. The candidates include the social security operations, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced in May that he intended to set up as two or three agencies covering virtually the whole of his Department. There is more to come; work is progressing in a number of other important areas of government.

  In support of this, a good deal of other work has been completed or is in hand, including work on accountability, appointment of chief executives, pay and personnel and recruitment flexibilities, financial regimes and delegation generally.

  The aim of next steps is better value for money and better service to the public. Accordingly agencies set up are being given performance targets and objectives in these areas. The first Agency is not yet a year old, but the signs are that targets will be achieved, and meanwhile that the
  700
  move to agency status has, as expected, released energies and enthusiasms of staff to tackle their tasks differently and better. I look to this to develop and progress. The success of next steps will be measured not simply by the number of agencies set up, but in the improvements in performance, for the benefit of taxpayers, customers and staff, that are expected to result. Arrangements are being set in hand to evaluate the project.

  Next steps has attracted considerable public interest and indeed general support, both at home and abroad. This House too has taken a close interest, and in the last six months both the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury and Civil Service Committee have carried out their own inquiries. The Government welcome this interest and will be replying to their reports in due course.

  Executive Agencies Established at July 1989

  Vehicle Inspectorate (DTp)

  Companies House (DTI)

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory (DTI)

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  Resettlement Units (DSS)

  Civil Service College (OMCS)

  QEII Conference Centre (PSA)

  Eight in number

  Executive Agency Candidates Announced at July 1989

  These are activities publicly announced by the responsible Ministers as under consideration for Agency status. Their progress towards Agency status varies, with some at a more advanced and certain stage than others.

  Building Research Establishment (DOE)

  Central Statistical Office

  Central Office of Information

  Central Veterinary Laboratory (MAFF)

  Civil Service Commission Recruitment Service (OMCS)

  Civil Service Occupational Health Service (OMCS)

  Crown Suppliers Fuel Branch (PSA)

  Defence non-Nuclear Research Establishments (MOD)

  Department of the Registers of Scotland (SO)

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Directorate (DTp)

  Driver Testing and Training (DTp)

  Employment Service (DE)

  Forensic Science Service (HO)

  Historic Buildings and Monuments Directorate (SO)

  Historic Royal Palaces (DOE)

  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce

  Insolvency Service (DTI)

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist (DTI)

  Land Registry

  Meteorological Office (MOD)

  National Engineering Laboratory (DTI)

  National Physical Laboratory (DTI)

  Passport Department (HO)

  Patent Office (DTI)

  Planning Inspectorate (DOE)

  Radiocommunications Division (DTI)

  Royal Parks (DOE)

  Social Security IT Services Agency (DSS)

  Social Security Benefits Agency (DSS)

  Training Agency (DE)

  Vehicle Component Approval (DTp)

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate (MAFF)

  Employment and Training Agency/Northern Ireland Civil Service

  Social Security Operations

  Rating Division

  Thirty-five in number

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Nepal
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Nepalese authorities about providing medical or other equipment and assistance to overcome shortages due to the dispute between Nepal and India.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No specific request for medical equipment has been received. The flow of supplies into Nepal appears to have improved and this has been reflected in our own aid projects where the improved supply of fuel has enabled a sustainable level of operations. We are, however, engaged in a continuing dialogue with the Nepalese authorities on our aid programme and will consider any well-founded request carefully.

DEFENCE

  Anthrax
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton of 19 July, if he will list the off-site activities of the chemical defence establishment at Porton Down involving detection, decontamination, treatment and protective systems involving anthrax other than on Gruinard island.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  All research work on anthrax undertaken by CDE scientists has been located at Porton Down and Gruinard island.

  Mine Warfare Exercise
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if consultations have taken place with local fishermen concerning the mine warfare exercise which is to take place in the firth of Clyde during August; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is no specific exercise taking place in the Firth of Clyde in August, but a dummy minefield is being laid during the month for evaluation purposes, as part of a continuing programme of mine countermeasures work. The co-ordinates of this were passed to the Clyde fishermen's association on 20 June 1989. A favourable response was received from the association on 10 July, and a Clyde warning message was issued on 20 July.

  Submarine Exercises
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Royal Navy is considering the re-introduction of the practice of having a fleet tender in attendance when a submarine is submerged on exercise; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am advised that it has not previously been standard practice for fleet tenders to be present at submarine exercises and there are no plans to introduce such a measure. Tenders will, however, continue to be a present for specific trials such as an initial dive after build or refit.

  HMS Dreadnought
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his future plans for HMS Dreadnought.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the House of Commons Defence Committee's seventh report, published on 21 June 1989.

  Nuclear Submarines (Rosyth)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that there be no further storage of nuclear submarines in the vicinity of Rosyth dockyard.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Government have made no decision about the method by which decommissioned nuclear submarines will be disposed of, nor where any submarines should be stored, should temporary storage afloat be necessary.

  Training
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Clackmannan of 19 July Official Report, column 232, what are the restrictions on the nature and extent of the training which apply in the two areas referred to in his reply; for what purpose he acquired long term rights over the two areas referred to; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The following restrictions apply to the nature and extent of training on the two areas in question:

  Forestry Commission Land in Galloway

  Under the terms of the licence, use of the area is permitted for adventure training, map reading, orienteering and small scale escape and evasion exercises. There are limitations on the number of men permitted to use the area at any one time and all buildings, lochs, SSS1s, low lying land and fields containing crops and hay are out of bounds. There are also limitations on the use of blank ammunition and pyrotechnics. vehicles and helicopters.

  British Aluminium Company Land at Kinlochleven

  The majority of the area is not available to MOD between 1 August and 21 October. With certain exceptions vehicles are not permitted other than on public roads. The use of live ammunition is prohibited and training must not interfere with or cause damage to any hydraulic or factory installation nor interfere with the landlord's use for all normal estate, sporting, agricultural or silvicultural purposes.

  We have acquired long-term rights over these two areas to secure the continuation of our present training activities.

  Training Land
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) to what percentage area of Ministry of Defence property holdings the public has(a) full access, (b) limited access and (c) no access;

  (2) to what percentage area of Ministry of Defence training land the public has (a) full access, (b) limited access and (c) no access.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is our policy to allow access to MOD-owned land where this is compatible with operational and safety considerations and with the interests of tenants and licensees. Records are not held in a form that would show the percentage of MOD land over which the public has access.
  703
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage area of Ministry of Defence training land is allowed to be used for live-fire training exercises.

  Mr. Neubert
  Records are not held in the form required and the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Live Ammunition (Exercises)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the annual number of exercises involving the use of live ammunition for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Neubert
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the annual number of reported incidents of members of the public discovering live ammunition in areas that had recently been used for training purposes, for each of the last 10 years for which data is available.

  Mr. Neubert
  I will write to the hon. Member.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police (West Midlands)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to whether any of the officers suspended or disciplined in the last five years in the west midlands police force were involved in investigating the murder of Carl Bridgewater.

  Mr. Hurd
  I understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands police that no officer from that force who was involved in the Carl Bridgewater murder inquiry has been suspended in the last five years. Two such officers have been disciplined in that period.

  Crime Screening
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will direct the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to publish in his annual report the statistics relating to the screening of reported crimes for further investigation; if he will publish the figures for 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that detailed figures for 1988 are not available centrally, but that the commissioner is considering what information might be published in future annual reports.

  Prison Officers' Housing
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cause of the hold-up by the Home Office in relation to the sale of 44 homes on the Gartree estate to prison officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Of the 81 prison quarters on the Gartree estate, 46 were released for sale under the prison service discount sales scheme on 30 June 1988. A total of 21 applications for purchase were received and offers of sale have been made to 18 applicants. Valuations for the other three properties have yet to be received from the district valuer.
  704
  Five of the offers made were accepted and sales are going ahead in the normal way. The main reason for delay on the other sales is the unwillingness of prospective purchasers to accept the terms of the discount scheme. This requires that the properties should be offered for sale on the basis of a valuation made at the date of application to purchase or at the date on which the properties were released for sale, whichever is the later. I have no authority to sanction sales based on a valuation at the date on which the discount scheme first came into effect—June 1987—which is what these prospective purchasers are seeking.

  Cornfield Circles
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constables of Hampshire and Wiltshire on their investigations into the cornfield circles in Hampshire and Wiltshire; what is the estimated cost of these investigations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I understand from the chief constables of Hampshire and Wiltshire that there have been no investigations into the cornfield circles by their officers.

  Race Relations (Liverpool)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will direct the Chief Inspector of Constabulary to inquire into those aspects of the findings of the first report of the Liverpool 8 inquiry into race relations in Liverpool which relate to the Merseyside police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  No.

  Broadcasting (Deaf People)
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to ensure that the Independent Television Commission will have adequate representation of deaf people.

  Mr. Renton
  The Independent Television Commission will be a regulatory body rather than a representative one. Members will be chosen to cover a wide range of experience and knowledge, but we do not believe it would be right to appoint a member specifically to serve the needs of the deaf.

  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he intends to lay down regulations that oblige the television broadcasters to ensure that whenever there is an emergency or urgent news flashes, the programme is broadcast so that deaf viewers can fully understand the message;

  (2) whether the proposed requirements for Channels 3 and 5 with regard to subtitling for the deaf will be applied to the BBC channels, Channel 4, cable and satellite channels; what reasonable target for the amount of subtitles in future years will be set by the Independent Television Commission; whether the proposed 10 per cent. increase in Teletest subtitles will be a minimum requirement; whether the proposal will include a requirement to provide a diverse service across all programming; and whether he is considering any inclusion in the proposal for sign language services and open-in-vision subtitles.
  705
  Mr. Hurd
  As I announced on 13 June, at column 715, we are proposing that Channel 3 and Channel 5 licensees should, in the first year of the new licences provide 10 per cent. more hours of subtitling than had been achieved on average by the ITV companies in the previous year. The licensees would, of course, be free to provide more hours than this if they so wished. The ITC would take this and other matters into account In judging a suitable target for future years. We envisage that the choice of which programmes should be subtitled should be left to the licence holder. The BBC and Channel 4 will continue to be bound by public service commitments and so can be expected to continue to provide subtitling.

  It will be for the broadcasters to determine how information is presented, beyond the requirement to be impartial and accurate in news reporting. Live subtitling is complex, and in some instances would be difficult to provide.

  With regard to the additional television channels, which are becoming available, we have always made it clear that we intend to impose on these channels a number of consumer protection requirements to safeguard the public on matters of taste and decency. Beyond that their success or failure will be determined by their ability to attract and retain viewers with their programme service.

  Services for the deaf should generally be provided by teletext, although by virtue of their public service obligations the BBC and Channel 4 can be expected to provide specialist services for those viewers without access to a teletext television set.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to how many officers involved in the case against Keith Parchment were also involved in the case of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to how many officers involved in the case against Paul Fitzsimmons were also involved in the case of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings;

  (3) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to how many officers involved in the case against Hassan Khan were also involved in the case against the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings;

  (4) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to how many officers involved in the case against Ernest Callaghan, Anthony Waldron, Robert Burston and Alexander Davies were also involved in the case against the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings;

  (5) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to how many of the officers involved in the case against Paul Dandy were also involved in the case of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  (6) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to how many officers involved in the case against Vincent Palmer were also involved in the case against the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings;
  706
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands Police that no officer involved in the cases of any of the individuals named was also involved in the case concerning those convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Detective-Sergeant Michael Hornby
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Police Complaints Authority as to the number of complaints made to them against Detective-Sergeant Michael Hornby; and what action was taken in each case.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The Police Complaints Authority is not itself empowered to receive complaints against police officers. Any complaint that the authority may receive against an individual officer is passed to the chief constable of the force concerned, so that he may record it and have it investigated under the terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 where appropriate under the supervision of the authority.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 425, he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to whether Detective-Sergeant Michael Hornby's personal file contains details of the offence for which he was disciplined in 1980.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 21 July, at column 403, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member on 11 July.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 425, he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to how many complaints have been received against Detective-Sergeant Michael Hornby for each of the last seven years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands Police that four complaints have been made against Detective-Sergeant Hornby in the last seven years, consisting of one in 1983, two in 1986 and one in 1987 which was subsequently withdrawn.

  Mr. Majid Agha
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what instructions are given to immigration officers about providing receipts for personal property which is retained by such officers;

  (2) what was the reason for the delay in responding to the letter from the hon. Member for Stretford about Mr. Majid Agha (HO Ref A429590);

  (3) what were the nature and length of the avoidable delays in arriving at a decision in the case of Mr. Majid Agha; and what steps have been taken to avoid repetition;

  (4) when the conclusion was arrived at that Mr. Majid Agha resides lawfully in Britain;

  (5) when the passports of Mr. Majid Agha were returned to him by immigration officers following their seizure;

  (6) why the visit to the home of Mr. Majid Agha by immigration officers took place without notice; why the immigration officers were accompanied by police officers on the visit to Mr. Majid Agha; and why Mr. Majid Agha's passports were taken by immigration officers.
  707
  Mr. Renton
  The case to which the hon. Member refers was the subject of a complaint about the conduct of the immigration officers involved in the particular inquiry. Following investigation I wrote to the hon. Member on 8 June. The answers to the additional specific questions are as follows:

  The reason why an unannounced visit by immigration and police officers took place was because information was available about the possible commission of immigration and other criminal offences. In the course of the inquiry two passports were taken away, against receipt, and with the consent of the person who was the subject of that inquiry. Instructions to immigration officers are that documents or other items taken during this kind of inquiry should have been provided voluntarily and that a receipt should be provided for any items retained.

  The visit took place on 31 January, the decision that the person in question was lawfully settled in the United Kingdom was made on 3 April and the passports returned on 20 April. There were two avoidable delays: one between 10 February and 21 March when the case received insufficient attention due to pressure of work, and one between 3 April and 17 April when the papers were temporarily mislaid in the immigration office at Manchester airport. Local procedures have been revised, aimed at avoiding a repetition of such delays.

  The reason for the delay in responding to the letter from the hon. Member for Stretford was, as explained in my interim reply of 13 March to his letter of 1 February, that investigation of the complaint and other inquiries at Manchester airport took some time to conclude.

  Breath Tests
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the Government intend to respond to the request of the Association of Chief Police Officers for additional breath-testing powers; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when the results of the Home Office consultation period on police breath-testing powers will he published; and in what form.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on 8 May 1989 at column 284.

  >Yashpal Singh
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why no Home Office representative was available to attend the case of Yashpal Singh (TH/1204/88) at Thanet house on 21 July, in which the entry certification officer, New Delhi, is the respondent; when a Home Office representative will be available to attend a hearing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The Home Office presenting officer allocated to the case was unfortunately admitted to hospital on that day. The case was complex and it was not, at short notice, possible to reallocate it. The adjudicator agreed to an adjournment and future listing of the case is a matter for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.

  Designated Custody Officers
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has received from chief constables in England and Wales concerning the extent to which they have designated custody officers having a rank other than that of a sergeant and having dual responsibilities within their police station in accordance with the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Chief officers are not required by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to provide my right hon. Friend with such information and he has not received any approaches from them on this point.

  Police Radio (Interference)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has received from the Northumbria police concerning exceptional radio interference on both VHF and UHF radio channels resulting from the European Cellnet system; what information he has on the extent to which this is causing a breakdown of communications between the command and control systems and police officers on the street; and what action he is taking to remendy this problem.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I shall write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Child Care Workers (Police Information)
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend the arrangements for the disclosure of police information about those who apply to work with children, which are currently available to local authorities and to voluntary organisations.

  Mr. Hurd
  We have today announced that, with the agreement of the Association of Chief Police Officers and representatives of the voluntary sector, three pilot schemes are to be set up to allow voluntary organisations access to police information about those who apply to work with children. One of the schemes will cover, principally, national child care organisations, the other two will be based locally in Dudley and Lancashire.

  The national scheme will be hosted by the National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations and, although it will cover largely national child care organisations, it would not exclude other nationally based organisations.

  The two local schemes, hosted by the Dudley Council for Voluntary Service and the Community Council for Lancashire will aim to provide a service for locally organised voluntary groups.

  The three new schemes, which will be funded by the Government during the pilot phase, will extend to voluntary organisations the arrangements now available to local authorities and the health service which will allow them access to police information about those seeking to work in posts which would give them substantial and unsupervised access to children.

  Underground Railway Stations (Fire Precautions)
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to make regulations on fire precautions in underground railway stations.
  709
  Mr. Hurd
  The necessary consultation with railway operators, fire authorities and others has now been completed and it is my intention to lay regulations within the next two weeks. The first of them will come into effect in mid-September. The regulations will be made under section 12 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.

  The regulations are part of the Government's response to Mr. Desmond Fennell's investigation into the King's Cross Underground fire and were announced to the House by my right hon. Friend, the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) last November. They will incorporate the great majority of Mr. Fennell's recommendations concerning fire precautions in underground railway stations and some additional requirements amongst them those concerning the construction of stations.

  The regulations will include those requiring the installation of heat detectors and sprinklers in escalators and other areas of high fire risk, for the protection and maintenance of exits so that all of these, including ticket barriers, can he immediately opened in case of fire, and for the training and provision of staff so that in an emergency they will know what to do.

  They apply to all underground stations, not only to those in London, and will be enforced by the local fire authority for the area. Fire authorities will have discretion to relax some of these requirements when this is justified by the circumstances.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for registration as British citizens made under the transitional provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981 are still outstanding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  In the financial year 1987–88 some 190,000 such applications for registration were received. I announced to the House on 19 May 1988 at column 1080 that a new nationality office in Liverpool would be opened to assist with the processing of the applications and the new office opened on 22 August 1988. Excellent progress has been made and the number of registration applications now outstanding is less than 60,000. We expect to have taken decisions on the last of the outstanding applications during January 1990—significantly ahead of the target date of 1 April.

  The establishment of the Liverpool nationality office to process registration applications has allowed the rest of the nationality division in Lunar house to concentrate exclusively on other categories of application for citizenship. Furthermore, once the registration work is completed, the Liverpool nationality office will begin to process naturalisations, almost doubling the capacity available for that work. In this way, we hope to be able to improve the level of service given to applicants during 1990–91.

  The difficulties caused by the rush of applications at the end of 1987 are not yet over, but we are on course to improve the level of service to our customers. The staff of the nationality division, both in Croydon and Liverpool, are to be congratulated on the efforts made to achieve that aim.

  Immigration
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration inspectors have been involved in each of the last six months for which records are available in the authorisation of decisions of immigration officers to make deportation orders against people; and on what basis each decision for(a) overstaying, (b) breach of conditions or (c) otherwise was taken.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 17 July 1989]: Fourteen immigration inspectors are authorised to take decisions relating to those liable to deportation under section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. Other categories of deportation cases are dealt with exclusively by the deportation section. Decisions in all deportation cases are based on all the known relevant facts in accordance with the immigration rules.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Inner Cities
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will report upon the progress of the Government's inner-city initiative.

  Mr. Forth
  Under the comprehensive range of measures, costing £3·5 million this year, which makes up the Action for Cities initiative, good progress continues to be made in the regeneration of our inner cities. In the 57 inner city target areas, unemployment fell by almost 24 per cent. in the 12 months to May 1989. Recorded crime in the Metropolitan police force areas fell by 6 per cent. in 1988. Involvement of private companies continues to grow—over the last six months the number of companies working with the Government's inner city task forces has increased from 450 to 500.

  Astra Satellite
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to ensure that the financial assistance given to, and the tax incentives provided for, the Astra project by the Luxembourg Government are in accordance with the treaty of Rome and that these aids will not distort fair competition in the United Kingdorn satellite market.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is open to the Government to raise with the European Commission any cases in which EC rules on state aids are alleged to have been broken and where British companies have been put to competitive disadvantage. If my hon. Friend would like to give me any further information relating to the aid given to the Astra project by the Luxembourg Government, I would be happy to consider the matter further.

  Life Assurance and Pensions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will publish in the Official Report figures for each year since 1979 showing the net increase in the amounts available for investment of life assurance and pension schemes to the nearest £1 million; and if he will provide a forecast for 1987 and for 1988

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Estimates of total net investment by the long-term funds of insurance companies and self
  711
  administered pension funds (excluding net investment by pension funds in insurance-managed funds) are as follows for the year 1979 to 1988.

  £ million

  1979

  10,100

  1980

  11,744

  1981

  13,533

  1982

  15,201

  1983

  15,957

  1984

  17,668

  1985

  18,089

  1986

  20,295

  1987

  21,035

  1988

  20,142

  Note: There are some breaks in the series due to definitional changes. The main ones are between 1983 and 1984 and between 1984 and 1985.

  Insurance Agents (Commissions)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make proposals to amend the law to ensure that tied agents of insurance policies disclose their commissions.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. Tied agents are not providing independent advice on behalf of a client, but are acting as the agent of the company they represent. The Securities and Investments Board has produced further proposals for disclosure of the status of the intermediary and disclosure of expenses in sales of life assurance and unit trusts.

  Timeshare Developments
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations he has received concerning cancellation provisions in contracts for timeshare developments; and what conclusions he has drawn;

  (2) if he will introduce legislation to require timeshare developers to include cooling off periods in contracts and provide for independent arbitration in the event of disputes over timeshare contracts;

  (3) if he will take powers to ban the use of incentive awards and sales presentations by timeshare developers.

  Mr. Forth
  I receive a steady flow of complaints about timeshare problems mainly criticising the sales techniques used by some companies and the lack of a penalty-free cooling off period in many timeshare contracts. I announced on 2 June that I had asked the Director General of Fair Trading to carry out a review of the whole range of timeshare problems and to make appropriate recommendations in the early part of next year.

  China
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will withdraw financial assistance from those organisations which are presently receiving assistance to further trade with China.

  Mr. Redwood
  The maintenance of departmental financial support for missions to and exhibitions in China is being reviewed on a case by case basis.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will report on the outcome of the Internal Market Council on 18 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Council, at which my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office represented the United Kingdom, discussed several issues, including the proposed European company statute; the draft EC merger regulation; and draft directives relating to rights of residence, the legal protection of computer programmes, and the introduction of public purchasing rules into the energy, water, transport and telecommunications sectors.

  Life Offices
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangemens have been made to provide guidance to life offices on the regulatory position as it affects broker funds.

  Mr. Redwood
  We have recently considered whether any regulatory issues arise from the operation of "broker funds", defined as "Any arrangement under which a broker (or a nominee of the broker) has rights, not available to individual policyholders, to advise or decide on matters which determine the benefits under policies issued by the life insurance company through the broker.

  We have consulted the Securities and Investments Board and other relevant self-regulating organisations. The Securities and Investments Board is today issuing a consultation paper on the marketing and competence issues involving broker funds.

  We have concluded that the operation of broker funds may in the past have exhibited some potential for unfairness although we have no firm evidence that there was any unfairness.

  Consequently the Department has today written to life offices and other relevant organisations providing guidance to life offices and their auditors on the regulatory position as it affects broker funds, and on certain other issues to which they should have regard in the appointment of brokers to manage funds and in the operation of those funds. I have arranged for a copy of the text of the letter to be placed in the Library of the House. The letter emphasises the importance of section 31A of the Insurance Companies Act 1982. This section requires insurance companies to ensure that adequate arrangements are in force for securing that transactions affecting assets of the company (other than transactions outside its control) do not operate unfairly between different funds of the company. In the Department's view any transaction between funds which is effected in the knowledge that it will, or is likely to, cause detriment to one of the funds must "operate unfairly". While section 31A is already in force we are considering introducing a new regulation later this year requiring companies to report on their arrangements to meet the duty imposed by the section. This regulation—which is the subject of separate consultation with the industry—would require a certificate to be signed by the directors, to be annexed to the annual report, which would state that for the past financial year the company has had in force arrangements to meet this duty. This certificate would be subject to audit. We have

  713
  considered the implications of section 31A for the operation of intermediaries funds, and in particular for the granting of rights to brokers which are not conferred on policyholders generally and detailed guidance is provided in the letter to assist insurance companies to comply with the section. Further, we consider that insurance companies should satisfy themselves as to the competence of any broker or nominee managing any of its funds and to monitor their performance on a regular basis. At all times companies should maintain tight controls on broker fund operations.

  Toys (Safety)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to make the regulations to implement in the United Kingdom the European Community directive on toy safety.

  Mr. Forth
  I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that I made the Toys (Safety) Regulations 1989 on 25 July and they are being laid before the House today.

  Car Production Plant, Swindon
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he made to Rover Group, British Aerospace or Honda in relation to the location of the proposed car production plant at Swindon.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The location of Honda's proposed car production plant was a matter for the company, but the Government made clear their welcome for Honda's decision to develop its existing engine facility at Swindon to full vehicle manufacture.

  FIMBRA
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter he received recently from the chairman of FIMBRA as referred to during the proceedings of the Standing Committee of the Companies Bill by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), column 619.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: It is not my right hon. and noble Friend's normal practice to place in the Library correspondence which he receives from third parties simply because it is referred to by an hon. Member in debate. However, since I understand that the chairman of FIMBRA provided copies of the letter in question to hon. Members serving on Standing Committee D at the time, I am, with the agreement of the chairman, placing a copy in the Library.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Birtenshaw Farm, Bolton
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has received any representations about the covenant on Birtenshaw farm, Bolton; and if he will make a statement.

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General has received an application for his consent to realtor proceedings in respect of a proposed development at Birtenshaw farm. This application is now being considered.

PRIME MINISTER

  Football Matches
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how many football matches she has attended in an official capacity in the past 10 years.

  The Prime Minister
  I have attended four matches in my official capacity over the past 10 years. In addition, since his appointment, my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has attended 25 domestic and international matches.

  Foreign Visits (Gifts)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the numbers and types of gifts she has received on her official visits abroad; and where these gifts are currently stored.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Prime Minister how many representations she has received from(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Norway regarding Nirex proposals for radioactive waste disposal at Sellafield and Dounreay

  The Prime Minister
  I have so far received two representations from United Kingdom residents and approximately 2,400 from Norway.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teachers (Pay)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to recognise above-average teacher performance in any plans he has for the future determination of teachers' pay.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Local education authorities can already award incentive allowances to teachers who have demonstrated outstanding ability in the classroom. It is important that any new pay arrangements continue to allow for classroom excellence to be rewarded.

  Teachers (Resignations)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn of 29 June,Official Report, column 536, what information or estimates he now has as to the number of resignations submitted by teachers as at 31 May;

  (2) what inquiries he has been able to make as to the number of (a) teachers and (b) head teacher resignations and the likely level of vacancies in September 1989; and with what result.

  Mr. Rumbold
  Comprehensive data are not available. My officials telephoned a number of local education authorities to ask about the level of teacher resignations. Separate information on head teachers was not collected. Information from those authorities suggests that the position is little changed from that in recent years. As local authorities and schools are still recruiting teachers to take up posts in September, it is too early to make estimates of likely vacancies.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what will be the benefit to primary schools of the introduction of the national curriculum and pupil assessment.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The national curriculum will assist all primary schools to reach the standards currently found in the best. Its framework of targets with linked assessment will enable primary schools to judge their pupils' achievements against objective standards and to identify their needs accordingly. This will give pupils the best possible foundation for their future education.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science on what basis postgraduate grants will be calculated once the link with the undergraduate grant comes to an end; and what compensation postgraduate students, especially those in high rent areas, will receive for the removal of benefits.

  Calendar year

  Number of proposals decided

  Number of places to be taken out of use by proposals in column 2

  Number of proposals in column 2 approved

  Number of surplus places to be taken out of use as a result of approved proposals

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  19891

  84

  34,992

  73

  24,981

  1 1 January 1989 to 30 June 1989.

  Inspectors' Reports
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report the expected dates for the publication of any report of any committee of Her Majesty's inspectors and of other documents of significance, during the next six months, with brief details of each publication.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There are no reports of Her Majesty's Inspectorate committees published. Her Majesty's Inspectorate publications are based on the findings and messages from inspections and as such are planned and produced by Her Majesty's inspectorate and it is the senior chief inspector who decides where and when what is to be put to the Secretary of State for his agreement to publish.

  GCSE
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, whether he has yet an indication of the effect of the GCSE examinations on staying on in full-time education and on the attainments of those taking the examination; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [pursuant to the reply, 10 February 1989,c. 846–48]: Provisional statistics collected by my Department indicate that in January 1989 there were some 382,000 pupils aged 16 and over in maintained and independent schools in England, an increase of 5 per cent. on the previous year. This represents a staying-on rate of 32·4 per cent. in all schools (29·5 per cent. in maintained schools alone) compared with 29·4 per cent. and 26·6 per cent. respectively in 1987–88. These are the highest-ever rates for staying on in school.

  Of these pupils, some 314,000 are following A-level courses, an increase of 8 per cent. on the previous year.
  716
  Mr. Jackson
  The levels of postgraduate studentships will in future be determined by the award-making bodies, consulting among themselves and with the Department as appropriate, in the light of all relevant factors, including the number and quality of applications for support and other claims on their resources. Students who face financial difficulties when they are no longer eligible for social security benefits will be able to seek supplementary assistance from their higher education institutions from the access fund for postgraduate students.

  School Closures
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the latest information relating to school closures for the current year to date on a basis consistent with the table in his answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn,Official Report, of 29 June, column 536.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is given in the table.

  The proportion of the age group on first year A-level courses in schools has risen by 3 percentage points to just under 24 per cent.; again, the highest figure ever.

  These are encouraging figures, particularly given the decline in the age cohort. They represent a 10 per cent. increase in the staying-on rate, the highest increase ever. In particular they strengthen the earlier evidence that the GCSE has raised the sights of many pupils and encouraged them to stay on for more advanced study.

  Comparable figures for enrolments in further education are not yet available.

  The following tables set out the relevant information.

  Table 1

  Pupils aged 16 and over in maintained secondary and independent schools

  1987–88 actual

  1988–89 estimated

  Percentage change

  Pupils 16 to 18

  Boys

  182,138

  190,187

  +4

  Girls

  178,553

  189,686

  +6

  Total

  360,691

  379,873

  +5

  Pupils by age

  16

  212,427

  218,251

  +3

  17

  132,313

  145,150

  +10

  18

  15,951

  16,472

  +3

  16 to 18

  360,691

  379,873

  +5

  19 plus

  2,378

  2,497

  +5

  Total

  363,069

  382,370

  +5

  Pupils by course of study1

  'A' level

  291,474

  313,872

  +8

  GCSE

  53,556

  49,810

  -7

  AS' level2

  481

  968

  —

  All other

  17,558

  17,720

  +1

  Total

  363,069

  382,370

  +5

  717
  1 Pupils may be taking more than one course but they are only counted once at the highest level course.

  2 One year group in 1987–88. Two year groups in 1988–89.

  Staying on rates at maintained secondary schools1

  January each year

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989 (provisional)

  Pupils aged 16

  Boys

  25·4

  25·2

  25·5

  25·0

  25·4

  27·8

  Girls

  29·4

  28·3

  28·3

  27·5

  27·9

  31·2

  Total

  27·4

  26·7

  26·9

  26·3

  26·6

  29·5

  Pupils aged 17

  Boys

  16·6

  16·0

  15·9

  15·9

  15·7

  16·7

  Girls

  18·0

  17·2

  16·7

  16·8

  16·4

  17·9

  Total

  17·3

  16·6

  16·3

  16·3

  16·0

  17·3

  1 Ages at previous 31 August. The number of pupils aged 16 and 17 expressed as a percentage of the 15 year olds one and two years earlier.

  Table 3

  Participation of 16 year olds in full-time education 1983–84 to 1988–89—Place and type of study—Males and Females Percentage of estimated population aged 16

  England

  Academic year

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Place and type of study

  A-level study

  Maintained secondary and independent schools1

  19·7

  19·4

  19·4

  19·4

  20·8

  23·8

  Tertiary colleges

  0·5

  0·7

  0·7

  0·8

  1·1

  n/a

  Total

  20·2

  20·1

  20·1

  20·2

  22·0

  n/a

  Other establishments

  1·6

  1·6

  1·6

  1·8

  1·8

  n/a

  All establishments

  21·8

  21·6

  21·7

  21·9

  23·7

  n/a

  O-level study2

  Maintained secondary and independent schools1

  7·8

  8·0

  7·9

  7·4

  6·6

  6·5

  Tertiary colleges

  0·3

  0·4

  0·4

  0·4

  0·5

  n/a

  Total

  8·0

  8·3

  8·3

  7·8

  7·1

  n/a

  Other establishments

  2·0

  1·8

  1·8

  1·9

  1·8

  n/a

  All establishments

  10·0

  10·2

  10·1

  9·7

  8·9

  n/a

  Other non-advanced study

  Maintained secondary and independent schools1

  2·0

  1·7

  1·9

  1·8

  2·0

  2·1

  Special schools3

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  n/a

  Tertiary colleges

  0·8

  1·2

  1·3

  1·3

  1·6

  n/a

  Total

  3·4

  3·5

  3·8

  3·7

  4·2

  n/a

  Other establishment

  12·6

  11·6

  11·8

  11·4

  11·6

  n/a

  All establishments

  16·1

  15·1

  15·6

  15·1

  15·8

  n/a

  All types of non-advanced study

  Maintained secondary and independent schools1

  29·5

  29·1

  29·2

  28·6

  29·4

  32·4

  Special schools

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  n/a

  Tertiary colleges

  1·6

  2·2

  2·4

  2·5

  3·2

  n/a

  Total

  31·7

  31·9

  32·2

  31·7

  33·2

  n/a

  Other establishments

  16·2

  15·0

  15·2

  15·1

  15·2

  n/a

  All establishments

  47·9

  46·9

  47·4

  46·8

  48·4

  n/a

  Population aged 16 (thousands)

  759·6

  742·7

  733·7

  713· 9

  722·6

  673· 2

  Notes:

  1 Estimated as no age split is available.

  2 Including those on CSE, GCSE and CEE courses.

  3 No details by type of course are available for special schools. n/a =Not available.
  718

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Clergy (Car Purchase)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will publish the details of the scheme operated by the Church Commissioners, in conjunction with dioceses of the Church of England, to assist clergy with car purchase and operation.

  Mr. Alison
  The car loan scheme operated by the commissioners enables all serving clergy, deaconesses and licensed lay workers on the commissioners' payroll to apply, through their diocesan office, for an interest free loan towards the purchase of a car. The loan is normally repayable over four years and, for parochial clergy, has a current ceiling of £4,550.

  The scheme was introduced on 1 July 1988 and has proved extremely popular; to date 2,798 loans have been granted, the total sum involved being £9·9 million.

  Parochial church councils are expected to reimburse the clergyman in full for those expenses which relate to parochial duties. These include car expenses, which the commissioners recommend be met by a mileage rate which includes elements for running costs, insurance, tax and depreciation.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Programmes (Expenditure)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) of 10 July,Official Report, column 380, if he will set out a detailed breakdown of the expenditure listed for 1988–89 nuclear, under the column headed "Other"; and what are the reasons for the increase from 1987–88 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The information requested is set out in the table. It should be noted that the figures are based on estimated outturn. Final outturn figures for 1988–89 are not yet available and will be published in the appropriate accounts in the usual way.

  The increase from 1987–88 is largely accounted for by decommissioning and radioactive waste management operations (Drawmops), the purpose of which is to enable the UKAEA to do the work needed to ensure that the Department's liabilities for radioactive waste management and decommissioning work are properly and safely met. The 1988–89 main estimates provision for Drawmops was some £10 million higher than in 1987–88. Drawmops is an operational programme where the work in any particular year is determined in the light of safety factors and the need to carry out work at least overall cost to the taxpayer. The Drawmops figure in the table also includes the provision of £51·4 million made in a spring supplementary

  Year

  Expenditure on energy by-final users

  Tax as a proportion of expenditure on energy

  Energy expenditure as a proportion of GDP1

  £ million

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1986

  37,950

  22·6

  10·0

  1987

  38,530

  23·4

  9·3

  1988

  38,910

  24·9

  8·5

  720
  Estimate for outstanding UKAEA liabilities to British Nuclear Fuels plc for decommissioning and radioactive waste operations.

  As explained in the Department's 1988 main Estimates (HC 339-vi), some £18 million of overall expenditure with the UKAEA in 1988–89 represented a technical adjustment to the timing of payments made by the Department (offset by a corresponding reduction in the UKAEA's external financing limit to leave no net change in public expenditure). This adjustment accounts for some £5 million of the expenditure in the "Other" column.

  The remainder of the increase on the 1987–88 total is accounted for by small increases in other programmes.

  Breakdown of Department of Energy 1988–89 expenditure under "Other" heading in table at column 380, Official Report 10 July 1989

  £ million

  General Nuclear Safety Research

  6·6

  Radiological Protection Research

  0·5

  Safeguards

  1·2

  Radioactive Waste Management Research

  2·4

  NIREX

  1·2

  Nuclear Materials Management

  4·5

  Decommissioning and Radioactive Waste Management Operations

  84·7

  Winfrith

  6·3

  Public Information

  3·0

  Advisory Services and Other

  3·9

  Contribution to UKAEA's Underlying Research Programme

  17·1

  Miscellaneous

  0·5

  Total

  131·9

  Civil Service (Relocation)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made in his Department's review, in line with Treasury guidelines, of the potential for the further relocation of Civil Service posts outside London and the South East; and when he expects the review to be completed.

  Mr. Wakeham
  As my predecessor told my hon. Friend on 15 February 1988 at column 513, there are no current plans for such relocation.

  The position will be reviewed at the end of 1990–91, when the Department has had some 18 months' experience of working in its new headquarters building.

  End Users (Expenditure)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total expenditure on energy in the United Kingdom by end users for each of the last three years; what proportion of that expenditure was tax; and what proportion that expenditure was of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Figures for the United Kingdom for the years 1986 to 1988 are shown in the following table:
  721
  1Calculated using the average measure of GDP at current market prices.

  Source: Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics and Central Statistical Office figures for GDP.

  Energy Efficiency Office
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the budget for the Energy Efficiency Office for each year since its inception.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Energy Efficiency Office was established on 31 October 1983. Actual expenditure in each year has been as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1984–85

  17·5

  1985–86

  22·5

  1986–87

  24·5

  1987–88

  18·6

  1988–89

  18·5

  Budget allocation for 1989–90 is £15 million.

  Childhood Cancer
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what research has been, and is being, undertaken to investigate the possible detrimental effects to health of overhead electricity power lines, specifically the alleged link between electromagnetism and childhood cancer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Central Electricity Generating Board has been carrying out research into the health effects of power frequency electromagnetic fields produced by overhead lines since the late 1970s.

  Independent work has also been carried out under contract at hospitals and universities in the United Kingdom and has included a detailed case/control study to investigate any possible links with childhood cancer. So far, the results have revealed no association between childhood cancers and overhead power lines. Research is continuing.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Chief Electoral Officer (Report)
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the report of the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland for 1988–89 will be published.

  Mr. Tom King
  The chief electoral officer's report was laid before the House today and is published as a House of Commons paper (No. 497). Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Short Brothers plc
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the status, after the company is sold to Bombardier, of the Government's assurances to creditors of Short Brothers plc that Her Majesty's Government would, in the last resort, ensure that their claims were fully met.

  Mr. Tom King
  After the date of completion of the sale of Short Brothers plc to Bombardier, no new obligations incurred by the company will he covered by any such assurances which have been given on a number of 722
  occasions, most recently on 21 July 1988. Obligations incurred between the signature of the contract and the completion date will cease to benefit from the assurances on completion.

  Disabled People (OPCS Surveys)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with organisations of and for disabled people on the findings of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys surveys.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: None.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on assessing the financial implications of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys surveys and of the Disabled Persons (N.I.) Act 1989.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: As the hon. Member is aware, the findings of the OPCS surveys relate only to Great Britain. The financial implications of the comparable Northern Ireland surveys will be considered when the relevant information is available.

  As to the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, the Department of Health and Social Services is currently consulting health and social services boards about the financial implications of its implementation.

  Disability Benefits Review
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has formally, to consult organisations of and for disabled people about the overall structure of the disability benefits review.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: Now that the sixth and final report of the OPCS survey of the disabled in Great Britain has been published, I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Disabled will be announcing a timetable for further action once proper consideration of these surveys has been completed. The need for consultation with organisations of and for disabled people in Northern Ireland about any Government proposals arising from the exercise and from the parallel surveys now being conducted locally will be considered at the appropriate time.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many letters were received from, and sent to, hon. Members by his Department in(a) January and (b) the whole of this session up to 1 July.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The records show the following:

  (a)

  (b)

  Received

  1,149

  10,142

  Sent

  943

  8,883

  European Institute for Advanced Security Studies
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present state of deliberations in the Western European Union Council of Ministers on the establishment of a European institute for advanced security studies as proposed by the Western European Union parliamentary assembly.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Permanent Council is continuing to study this question. A report will be made to the next meeting of the Council of Ministers.

  Conventional Arms Limitation
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific measures the Government considers are necessary to ensure the progress of negotiations on the limitation of conventional armaments, and to link all initiatives in regard to short-range nuclear weapons with their success, as recommended by the Western European Union Parliamentary Assembly.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Alliance proposals for progress in the conventional armed forces negotiation were tabled in Vienna on 9 March and 13 July. The Alliance position on the relationship of SNF to conventional arms control was set out in the comprehensive concept issued by the NATO heads of Government summit meeting on 29–30 May.

  UN (British Delegations)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the names of the British delegations to each meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations in the past two years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A list of accredited delegations to the United Nations General Assembly is published each year by the United Nations. I have arranged for copies of the list for 1987 (UNGA 42) and 1988 (UNGA 43) to be placed in the Library.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's estimated expenditure in the current year on hosting official visitors from foreign countries.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Since January there have been 15 guest of Government visits initiated by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1989. These were:

  Number

  Presidential

  3

  Prime Ministers

  2

  Foreign Ministers/Minister of State

  10

  15

  Total expenditure to date=£215,000.

  Estimated total expenditure for 1989=£350,000.

  South Africa
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last made representations to the South African Government for the 724
  release of (a) Walter Sisula, (b) Elias Motsoaledi, (c) Andrew Mlangeni, (d) Ahmed Kathrada, (e)Wilton Mkwayi and (f) Nelson Mandela; what reply he has received; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have made frequent representations to the South African Government calling on them to release Mr. Mandela and all other political prisoners. Most recently, on 23 June, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the subject with the new leader of the South African National party, Mr. F. W. de Klerk. We continue to look for a positive response from the South African Government.

  Grenada
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between Her Majesty's Government and Grenada.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Our relations with Grenada are close and friendly.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the export of chemicals from India which may be used for the production of chemical weapons.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  India has a growing chemical industry and exports a number of chemicals. We understand that the Indian Government are reviewing the country's chemical export practices to ensure that chemicals exported from India cannot be diverted into the manufacture of chemical weapons.

  Colombia
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights in the last five years in Colombia.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have made a number of representations about human rights to the Colombian authorities over the last five years. The precise information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights in the last five years in Bahrain.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have made a number of representations to the Bahraini authorities about human rights over the past five years but the precise information required is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights in the last five years in French Polynesia.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.
  725
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights in the last five years in Andorra.

  Mr. Maude
  None.

  Kenya
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Kenya concerning that Government's practice that British nationals of Asian Kenyan origin require visas to enter Kenya while other British nationals do not.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Immigration procedures for entry into Kenya are a matter for the Kenyan Government. However, our High Commission has made regular representations to the Kenyans on this subject since Kenya introduced revised visa regulations in 1986.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will announce a scheme of assurances to encourage Hong Kong people to remain in the territory.

  Mr. Major
  The Government are continuing their urgent work on the scheme and an announcement will be made as soon as this work is completed.

  CSCE (Implementation)
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress there has been in the implementation by the Soviet and eastern European countries of the provisions of the Helsinki final act and other conference on security and co-operation in Europe documents during the last six months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have recently prepared a report on Soviet and East European implementation of their CSCE commitments for the period January to June 1989. Copies will be deposited in the Library of the House.

  Nepal
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the impact on British travellers of the present dispute between India and Nepal.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There is no reason for British travellers not to visit Nepal. We understand that fuel supplies are no longer rationed, public transport is almost back to normal and most hotels are now operating normally.

TRANSPORT

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received any environmental impact study consequent on British Rail's proposals for a subsurface junction in Warwick gardens in connection with the Channel tunnel rail link.
  726
  Mr. Portillo
  Not yet. British Rail intends to produce in due course an environmental statement covering the whole of the proposed route for the Channel tunnel rail link.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to how many passengers per hour the Docklands light railway takes, and how many it will take when improved.

  Mr. Portillo
  The current capacity of the Docklands light railway on each of the Tower Gateway and Stratford branches is about 1,750 passengers per hour. The capacity of the railway between Tower Gateway and the Isle of Dogs will double early next year and increase further to some 6,500 passengers per hour at the beginning of 1991. On completion of the City extension and upgrading programme, the available capacity from Bank and Stratford respectively will be about 7,000 and 5,000 passengers per hour. The planned capacity of the Beckton extension from Bank is similar to that from Bank to the Isle of Dogs.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average waiting time for a driving test in(a) Doncaster, (b) Barnsley, (c) Rotherham, (d) Sheffield and (e) nationally; and what were the comparable figures (i) five years and (ii) 10 years ago.

  Mr. Atkins
  The table shows the waiting time for a test nationally and at each of the test centres, at present and at July 1985. No earlier figures are available.

  Centre

  Waiting times

  At present weeks

  July 1985 weeks

  Doncaster

  11

  18

  Rotherham

  12

  18

  Barnsley

  5

  17

  Sheffield

  8

  26

  Nationally

  11

  18

  Driving Examiners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many driving examiners his Department employs in(a) Doncaster, (b) Barnsley, (c) Rotherham and (d) Sheffield; and what were the comparable figures

  (i) five years and (ii) 10 years ago.

  Mr. Atkins
  The table shows the examiners in post at each of the test centres (i) at present, (ii) in 1985 and (iii) in 1979.

  Examiners in post

  Centre

  At present

  1985

  1979

  Doncaster

  7

  6

  6

  Rotherham

  5

  5

  4

  Barnsley

  6

  5

  4

  Sheffield

  15

  11

  10

  Drink-Driving
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the number of countries which have reduced the level of drunken driving at a faster rate than the United Kingdom over the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The percentage of drivers and riders killed in road accidents in the United Kingdom over the past five years whose blood alcohol level was above the legal limit fell from 28 per cent. in 1983 to 21 per cent. in 1988.

  The number of drivers and riders involved in accidents over the same period who were breath-tested rose from 42,300 to 75,000, yet the number that failed the test fell from 12,400 to 10,200. We are not aware of any other country in which the level of drinking and driving has fallen at a faster rate than these indicators show.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the mean blood alcohol concentration of drivers and riders with illegal blood alcohol levels killed in road traffic accidents in total and by age groups in(a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland.

  Mr. Atkins
  The mean blood alcohol concentration of drivers and riders killed in road accidents can be calculated from coroners' reports. As we do not have complete reports for all such drivers or riders, the following figures are based on samples, and cannot reasonably be disaggregated beyond the levels given. The table shows the levels requested for England and Wales, Scotland, Great Britain, and an age breakdown for Great Britain.

  Mean blood alcohol concentrations of drivers and riders killed in road accidents with a BAC above the legal limit: 1987

  mean blood/ alcohol level (mgs per 100 ml)

  England and Wales

  180

  Scotland

  205

  Great Britain

  Age 16–24

  165

  Age 25–39

  185

  Age over 40

  200

  Total

  180

  Because of the small numbers involved, care must be taken in comparing these levels. In particular, the information for Scotland is based on a very small sample, and so is liable to a large degree of error.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are for repeating the 1988 breath test surveys of the frequency of drinking and driving; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply of 24 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) col.558. The surveys are now under way.

  Hedgerow Cutting
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has issued advice to British Rail about the timing of hedgerow cutting along railway lines to prevent the killing of hedgerow birds; and if he will make a statement.
  728
  Mr. Portillo
  No. These are management matters for British Rail, which has its own code of practice on railway linesides.

  Fishing Vessels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many foreign-owned fishing vessels have been struck off the register of United Kingdom registered fishing vessels; and if he will make a statement:

  (2) how many foreign-owned fishing vessels have been refused (a) a full certificate or (b) a temporary certificate in respect of the new register of United Kingdom registered fishing vessels; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many foreign-owned fishing vessels or those which are partially owned by non-United Kingdom citizens have been warded (a) full certificates and (b) temporary certificates by the registrar general for shipping in respect of the new register of United Kingdom registered fishing vessels;

  (4) how many outstanding applications there are for (a) full certificates and (b) temporary certificates in respect of the new register of United Kingdom registered fishing vessels at the most recent date; and if he will make a statement.

  (5) if he will list the number of (a) full certificates and (b) temporary certificates granted by the registrar general for shipping in respect of the new register of United Kingdom registered fishing vessels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  At 21 July 1989, 9,613 vessels had been registered. Thirteen of these were owned by individuals who are not United Kingdom citizens but who could prove long standing United Kingdom residence and involvement in the British fishing industry. No separate record is kept of vessels which are partly owned by non-United Kingdom nationals. Soome 3,500 temporary certificates were issued for three months, lapsing on 1 July 1989: most of these vessels have since been fully registered. About 150 formerly registered vessels have been refused registration because they failed to satisfy the requirements of the 1988 Act but fresh applications have been received in respect of the majority of them. In addition to these, the registrar general is currently processing 750 new applications for full registration.

  North Report
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to introduce legislation based on the North report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 23 June to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) at column 269.

  Whaley Bridge Bypass
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the report by Allol and Lomax, consulting engineers, into the performance of the consulting engineers employed on the Chapel-en-le-Frith/Whaley Bridge bypass; and if he will place a copy in the Library.
  729
  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given by the then Minister for Roads and Traffic, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), on 2 and 9 March.

  Derailment (Harrow)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the derailment of the InterCity 125 express train at Harrow and Wealdstone which occurred at 8.50 pm on Thursday 20 July; and what decision he has reached on a public inquiry.

  Mr. Portillo
  Six coaches of the 1400 Glasgow to London express passenger train carrying about 300 passengers became derailed as the train approached Harrow and Wealdstone station.

  The train came to rest with the locomotive and leading four coaches standing on the rails in the station platform. The fifth coach was derailed and leaning over. The rear of the train had divided into two parts with a gap of 400m between the leading part and three derailed but upright coaches; and a gap of 35m between those three and the last two derailed but upright coaches. Twenty-six persons were injured, none seriously. Twenty were treated locally, and six taken to hospital. The emergency services were called by the senior conductor, using a passenger's cellphone, as the train came to rest.

  The independent railway inspectorate and British Rail are investigating the cause of the accident. My right hon. Friend will not decide on the need for a public inquiry until he has more information about why the accident occurred.

  East London Rail Study
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made on the east London rail study.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Department's consultants, Halcrow Fox and Associates (HFA), have today issued a report on the east London rail study. Their preferred option for a second line to the Docklands is an extension to the Jubilee line from Green Park via Waterloo, London Bridge and Canary wharf to Stratford. The line might be routed via either Greenwich point or Brunswick foreshore.

  No decisions have yet been taken on whether the proposed line should be built. HFA estimates that the total cost of the new line would be of the order of £900 million at late 1988 prices. We shall need to consider the findings of the report, and in particular how the line would be financed. As we have already made clear the line would only be built if sufficient contributions are forthcoming from property developers and other landowners who would benefit.

  LRT has already begun consultations with local authorities and other interested parties about these proposals. I have agreed that, in order that a Bill could be deposited this autumn to seek the necessary parliamentary powers, further work should concentrate on the recommended alignment running from Green Park via Waterloo to London Bridge rather than the alternative which might start from Charing Cross and run via Ludgate Circus.

  Salisbury Bypass
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement about the preferred route of the proposed Salisbury by-pass.

  Mr. Atkins
  We aim to announce a preferred route before the end of the year.

WALES

  Porpoises (Deaths)
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures his Department has taken to identify the cause of the deaths of porpoises washed up in Cardigan bay in the current year.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None. Welsh Water, in liaison with other interested parties, has carried out considerable research, but has concluded that none of the existing discharges in Cardigan bay has contributed to the problem.

  Anthrax
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many deaths of pigs in 1988 at Singrett farm, Llay, have been ascribed to anthrax; how many deaths were ascribed to matters other than anthrax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No deaths in 1988 at Singrett Farm, Llay, were ascribed to anthrax. It has not been possible to ascertain how many deaths were due to other causes but the mortality rate was well within the range experienced in other well-run units.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he took consequent upon the outbreak of anthrax at Singrett farm, Llay in April to establish the cause of previous deaths in 1989 at that farm; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Prior to the outbreak of anthrax at Singrett farm, Llay on 19 April, 13 sows and gilts had died during 1989. Anthrax was not suspected in any except one which died on 9 April, for which tests proved negative.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the production of vaccine in Britain was begun to combat the anthrax outbreak at Llay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Production of an emergency supply of vaccine to deal with the outbreak of anthrax at Llay began on 10 July 1989 at the MAFF central veterinary laboratory, Weybridge.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish a public inquiry into the 1989 anthrax outbreak in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what review he will undertake of(a) the anthrax regulations and (b) the Medicines Act consequent upon the current year's outbreak of anthrax in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.
  731
  Mr. Peter Walker
  The decision to slaughter and offer compensation was taken on animal welfare grounds not because of any deficiency in the Anthrax Order 1938.

  Health Service Proposals
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposed to publish in Wales the equivalent to the Department of Health's, "Self Governing Hospitals: a Guide"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My officials will be making available copies of the Department of Health's documents "Self-Governing Hospitals: An Initial Guide" and "Self-Governing Hospitals: Briefing for NHS Managers" for the information of relevant NHS interests in Wales.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to publish papers concerning National Health Service reforms as they apply to Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Chapter XI of the White Paper, "Working for Patients" (Cm. 555), set out the broad framework for further improving the NHS in Wales. My right hon. Friend and I have been having extensive discussions with a wide range of interests since the publication of the White Paper and we intend shortly to make a statement on the next steps in Wales.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library minutes of the meetings of the board of the Welsh Development Agency for 1989.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No. It would not be appropriate for the Welsh Development Agency to make public a record of its board meetings.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what occasions over the last 12 months, the finance director of the Welsh Development Agency met representatives of the National Freight Corporation; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am advised by the agency that the finance director has met representatives of the National Freight Corporation once (on 13 July 1988) when a range of matters of mutual interest was discussed.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales pursuant to his oral reply to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) of 17 July,Official Report, column 6, if he will list the names and positions of the Welsh Office officials, who knew of the rejection of the management buy-out from WDA West Wales; when those officials first learned of the proposals; and how they came to know of them.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In November or December 1988 an official of the Welsh Office, Mr. Own Rees, head of the economic and regional policy group, was telephoned at home by a chartered accountant and informed that the regional managers of the west Wales office of the Welsh Development Agency had formulated proposals for a regional management buy-out which were not being favourably considered by the agency's management in Cardiff. Mr. Rees told the accountant that he was not the 732
  official with responsibility for the affairs of the WDA and that if he or those he was advising wished to pursue the question he or they should write in an official way to the director of the Welsh Office industrial department. In January 1989 the accountant wrote to Mr. Rees at his home making the same points and received the same response. Mr. Rees informed the industry department director of both approaches and of his reply. Nothing further was heard from the accountant.

  In May 1989 industry department officials made inquiries of the agency to enable me to answer the question put down by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). In that context, I was informed that the west Wales management had made proposals for contracting out certain services to the private sector but that these were regarded by the agency as premature. I knew nothing of management buy-out proposals until Mr. Wyn Pryce wrote to me and made his announcement to the press.

  Alcohl and Drug Abuse
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department spends each year on counteracting(a) alcohol abuse, and (b) drugs abuse in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The prime responsibility for providing advice and treatment facilities to deal with alcohol and drug abuse rests with individual health and local authorities. The Health Promotion Authority for Wales also has a major health educational role.

  On drug misuse in the current financial year my Department has earmarked nearly £1·5 million for health authorities and voluntary sector projects.

  On alcohol misuse, in addition to funds allocated to health authorities and the Health Promotion Authority for Wales, my Department has also funded the activities of Alcohol Concern Wales (ACW). In 1988–89, ACW received £48,000 and a bid for increased funding for 1989–90 is currently being finalised.

  Funds are also provided to finance specific publicity campaigns to warn of the dangers of drug and alcohol misuse.

  Quangos (Appointments)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the quangos to which he appoints the chairpersons in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I appoint the chairpersons to the following bodies:

  Advisory Group for Breast Cancer Screening

  Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales

  Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committee Panel of Chairman

  Agricultural Valuation Committee (Wales)

  Agricultural Wages Committees:

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Glamorgans

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Powys

  All Wales Advisory Panel on the Development of Services for People with Mental Handicaps

  Ancient Monuments Board for Wales

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Committee on Opportunities for Volunteering

  Committee for the Welsh Scheme for the Development of Health and Social Research

  733

  Curriculum Council for Wales

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  District Health Authorities:

  Clwyd

  East Dyfed

  Gwent Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Pembrokeshire

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Family Practitioner Committees:

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Health Promotion Authority

  Historic Buildings Council for Wales

  Housing for Wales

  Land Authority for Wales

  Library and Information Services Council (Wales)

  Local Government Boundary Commission

  Place Names Advisory Committee

  Rent Assessment Panel

  Standing Working Group of the Wales Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education

  Teamcare Valleys Steering Group

  Training, Enterprise and Education Advisory Group

  Sports Council for Wales

  Urban Investment Grant Advisory Panel

  Wales Tourist Board

  Welsh Committee on Drug Misuse

  Welsh Development Agency

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority

  Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board

  Welsh Language Board

  Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  Welsh Water Authority

  Lluesty Hospital, Clwyd
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a further statement concerning the future of Lluesty hospital, Clwyd.

  Mr. Grist
  I understand that when it met on 24 July, Clwyd health authority decided to propose the closure of Lluesty hospital, and to consult widely on the issue. The consultation period will end on 30 November 1989.

  If in the light of this exercise the authority decides to proceed with the proposal the issue would, in the normal way, be referred to my right hon. Friend. Given his potential role in this matter it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this stage.

  Drainage Works, Caergwrle
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make an additional cash allocation to the Welsh water authority to enable repairs and improvements to be made to the underground sewerage and drainage in the Derby road area of Caergwrle in Alyn and Deeside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  No. Priorities within their expenditure programme are a matter for the authority to determine.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet Caergwrle community council to 734
  discuss the need for remedial action to be taken in the Derby road area of Caergwrle concerning underground drainage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  No. This is a matter for the Welsh water authority which, I understand, has remedial action in hand.

  Clayform Shopping Development
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet residents of the Broughton and Bretton communities who object to the proposed Clayform shopping development project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  No, but any written objections submitted by the Broughton and Bretton communities, or any other party, will be carefully considered by my right hon. Friend in reaching a decision on whether to call-in the Clayform Company's shopping development proposal.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to ensure that a public inquiry is held on the application of the Clayform Company shopping development project proposal at Broughton and Bretton, Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The application by the Clayform Company has now been referred to the Welsh Office by the Alyn and Deeside district council as a material departure from the approved Clwyd structure plan, under paragraph 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans) (Wales) Direction 1981. A decision on whether the application should be called in for my right hon. Friend's determination, normally after holding a public local inquiry, will be made as soon as possible.

  Mountain Lane CP School, Buckley
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the parent-teacher association and school governors of Mountain Lane CP school, Buckley, Clwyd, to discuss with them the need for a mobile classroom in order to avoid overcrowding and the need to conduct classes in the school hall which is also a dining room: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No. Responsibility for determining school provision rests with the Clwyd local education authority. I am currently considering a proposal by the LEA to cease to maintain Bistre nursery school and a nursery extension to Mountain Lane CP school forms part of that proposal.

  Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to make a statement on cancer treatment services for people in north Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) on 17 July 1989 at column 36.

  Local Government Expenditure
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will state, for each district and county in Wales, for 1989–90 and 1990–91, the(a) spending need

  735
  assessment, (b) adult population, (c) community charge at need, (d) domestic contribution for spending at need, (e) share of the national non-domestic rate pool, (f) share of revenue support grant, (g) the total of (e) and (f) and (h) expenditure.

  (a) Standard spending assessment1

  (b) Adult population2

  (c) Community charge at standard spending

  (d) Domestic contribution for standard spending

  (e) Share of national non-domestic rate pool (NNDR)

  (f) Revenue support grant (RSG) 3

  (g) Total of RSG and NNDR

  (h) Assumed expenditure (Total rate income plus block grant) 4

  £000

  (000s)

  £

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Alyn and Deeside

  6,492

  54·2

  26·63

  1,443

  1,722

  3,327

  5,049

  6,288

  Colwyn

  4,895

  42·1

  26·63

  1,121

  1,337

  2,437

  3,774

  4,948

  Delyn

  6,109

  49·0

  26·63

  1,305

  1,556

  3,248

  4,804

  6,360

  Glyndwr

  3,423

  31·8

  26·63

  847

  1,010

  1,566

  2,576

  3,513

  Rhuddlan

  6,328

  43·9

  26·63

  1,169

  1,394

  3,765

  5,159

  6,260

  Wrexham Maelor

  11,089

  87·3

  26·63

  2,325

  2,773

  5,991

  8,764

  11,163

  Carmarthen

  4,984

  42·7

  26·63

  1,137

  1,356

  2,491

  3,847

  4,670

  Ceredigion

  6,748

  50·9

  26·63

  1,356

  1,617

  3,776

  5,393

  5,956

  Dinefwr

  3,454

  29·9

  26·63

  796

  950

  1,708

  2,658

  2,617

  Llanelli

  8,021

  57·6

  28·57

  1,646

  1,830

  4,546

  6,376

  8,239

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  6,965

  53·7

  26·63

  1,430

  1,706

  3,830

  5,535

  5,880

  South Pembrokeshire

  4,450

  31·2

  26·63

  831

  991

  2,628

  3,619

  3,942

  Blaenau Gwent

  9,365

  59·4

  26·63

  1,582

  1,887

  5,897

  7,783

  10,556

  Islwyn

  7,232

  50·4

  26·63

  1,342

  1,601

  4,289

  5,890

  7,781

  Monmouth

  6,396

  61·0

  26·63

  1,624

  1,938

  2,834

  4,771

  6,396

  Newport

  14,941

  98·1

  28·57

  2,803

  3,116

  9,022

  12,138

  15,743

  Torfaen

  8,641

  69·0

  26·63

  1,838

  2,192

  4,612

  6,803

  9,539

  Aberconwy

  5,334

  42·4

  26·63

  1,129

  1,347

  2,858

  4,205

  5,443

  Arfon

  5,804

  41·4

  26·63

  1,103

  1,315

  3,387

  4,702

  5,830

  Dwyfor

  3,501

  21·1

  26·63

  562

  670

  2,269

  2,939

  3,546

  Meirionnydd

  3,537

  24·7

  26·63

  658

  785

  2,095

  2,879

  4,180

  Ynys Môn

  7,124

  52·6

  26·63

  1,401

  1,671

  4,053

  5,724

  7,423

  Cynon Valley

  8,405

  49·6

  28·57

  1,417

  1,575

  5,412

  6,987

  7,638

  Merthyr Tydfil

  7,783

  44·5

  28·57

  1,272

  1,413

  5,098

  6,511

  7,818

  Ogwr

  12,716

  103·4

  26·63

  2,754

  3,284

  6,679

  9,963

  13,529

  Rhondda

  11,289

  59·0

  28·57

  1,686

  1,874

  7,729

  9,603

  11,328

  Rhymney Valley

  10,384

  77·6

  26·63

  2,067

  2,465

  5,853

  8,318

  11,176

  Taff Ely

  9,127

  70·2

  26·63

  1,869

  2,230

  5,028

  7,257

  8,773

  Brecknock

  3,995

  31·6

  26·63

  842

  1,004

  2,149

  3,153

  3,879

  Montgomeryshire

  4,474

  39·2

  26·63

  1,044

  1,245

  2,185

  3,430

  3,743

  Radnorshire

  2,032

  17·3

  26·63

  461

  549

  1,022

  1,572

  1,827

  Cardiff

  34,929

  214·3

  26·63

  5,707

  6,807

  22,415

  29,222

  28,921

  Vale of Glamorgan

  10,663

  89·6

  26·63

  2,386

  2,846

  5,431

  8,277

  9,259

  Port Talbot

  5,723

  38·5

  26·63

  1,025

  1,223

  3,474

  4,697

  5,991

  Lliw Valley

  5,498

  47·3

  26·63

  1,260

  1,502

  2,736

  4,239

  5,370

  Neath

  6,174

  50·0

  26·63

  1,332

  1,588

  3,254

  4,842

  6,656

  Swansea

  22,775

  144·0

  26·63

  3,835

  4,574

  14,366

  18,940

  24,328

  Clwyd

  206,028

  308·3

  135·97

  41,918

  49,389

  114,721

  164,109

  214,596

  Dyfed

  186,966

  266·0

  135·58

  36,065

  42,612

  108,289

  150,902

  190,422

  Gwent

  232,151

  337·9

  135·42

  45,759

  54,130

  132,262

  186,392

  229,842

  Gwynedd

  131,096

  182· 2

  135·97

  24,773

  29,188

  77,136

  106,323

  130,092

  Mid Glamorgan

  290,088

  404·3

  135·29

  54,698

  64,767

  170,622

  235,390

  294,617

  Powys

  71,323

  88·1

  135·97

  11,979

  14,113

  45,231

  59,344

  70,111

  South Glamorgan

  207,951

  303·9

  135·97

  41,320

  48,684

  117,948

  166,631

  207,939

  West Glamorgan

  191,497

  279·8

  135·97

  38,043

  44,823

  108,631

  153,454

  200,871

  1 Standard spending (needs) assessments are under review for 1990–91.

  2 Population figures are based on the Registrar General's 1987 mid-year estimates.

  3 Excluding safety-net adjustments.

  4 Including community councils' precepts

HEALTH

  Low Birth Weights
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by year from 1979 to date for the Trent regional health authority, and by hospital, the number of low birth weight deliveries recorded.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect information centrally in the form requested. However, statistics on low birth
  736
  Mr. Peter Walker
  Illustrative figures for 1989–90 are given in the table. Figures for 1990–91 are not available.

  weight deliveries are published annually in OPCS monitor DH3 "Infant and Perinatal Mortality" broken down into regions and districts but not hospitals.

  Health Care Demand
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the annual increase in demand for health care due to new drugs, new surgical techniques, improved diagnostic techniques, new monitoring and life support equipment and better after-care methods.
  737
  Mr. Freeman
  There is no precise measure of the annual increase in demand for health care as a result of medical advance which can both raise and lower costs of treatment and care.

  Operations (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current waiting time for the following operations:(a) kidney transplants, (b) hip replacement joints, (c) knee replacement joints and (d) cataract removal.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information on waiting times for kidney transplants is given in my reply to the hon. Member for 738
  Southport (Mr.Fearn) on 22 February at columns 674–75. For the other operations requested the latest information held centrally is for 1985 and is given in the table.

  Estimated median interval in weeks between the time an in-patient was placed on the waiting list and admission to an NHS non-psychiatric hospital, England 1985

  Operation

  Median Wailing Time (weeks)

  Total hip replacement and arthroplasty of hip

  21

  Arthroplasty of knee

  21

  Operation on eye lens (mainly cataract)

  16

  Dentists
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the contribution that the transfer of responsibility for payment of general dental practitioners to the Dental Practices Board will make to strengthening the role of family practitioner committees as set out in the White Paper "Working for Patients";

  (2) whether he consulted the Society of Family Practitioner Committees or the Society of Administrators (Family Practitioner Services) on the transfer of responsibilities for payment of dental practitioners to the Dental Practices Board;

  (3) whether responsibility for payment of general dental practitioners has now been transferred from family practitioner committees to the Dental Practices Board.

  Mr. Freeman
  Officials have written both to the Society of Family Practitioner Committees and to the Society of Administrators (Family Practitioner Services) about the propsal to transfer responsibility for paying dentists to the Dental Practice Board. The transfer has not yet taken place. Meetings to discuss the implications of the change will be held soon. It will not detract from the management role of family practitioner committees in relation to the delivery, quality and availability of general dental services in their areas.

  CT Scanners
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many computerised tomography scanners are currently installed in England and Wales; how many are owned(a) by the private sector and (b) by the National Health Service; of the latter, how many were purchased by (i) health authorities and (ii) provided by private gift or public subscription; and if he will make available any information at his disposal on the number of such machines installed in other western countries at his disposal including the United States, Japan, Sweden, France and the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mr. Freeman
  Latest information indicates that there are 198 CT scanners currently installed in England and Wales, of which 29 are owned by the private sector and 169 by the National Health Service. Our best estimates suggest that 61 per cent. of these scanners were purchased by health authorities and 39 per cent. by private gift or public subscription.

  Available information on the number of machines installed in other western countries is limited; estimates suggest a total of 3,600 in the United States of America, 3,000 in Japan, 450 in West Germany and 200 in France. We have currently no details of the number in Sweden.

  Kidney Dialysers
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many kidney dialysers are(a) currently installed in England and Wales; how many are owned (a) by the private sector and (b) by the National Health Service; of the latter, how many were (i) purchased by health authorities and (ii) provided by private gift or public subscription; and if he will make available any information at his disposal on the number of such machines installed in other western countries, including the United States, Japan, Sweden, France and the Federal Republic of Germany.
  740
  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that the information is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Machines
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many magnetic resonance imaging machines are currently installed in England and Wales; how many are owned(a) by the private sector and (b) by the National Health Service; of the latter, how many were (i) purchased by health authorities and (ii) provided by private gift or public subscription; and if he will make available any information at his disposal on the number of such machines installed in other western countries, including the United States, Japan, Sweden, France and the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mr. Freeman
  Available information indicates that there are 19 magnetic resonance imaging machines currently installed in England and Wales, of which four are owned by the private sector and 15 are operated partially or entirely within the National Health Service.

  The source of funding for the purchase of these 15 was as follows:

  Number

  Purchased by health authorities

  1

  Purchased by Department of Health and other Government agencies

  3

  Purchased by public appeal and the National Health Service

  1

  Purchased by public appeal and Government agencies

  1

  Purchased by public appeal and donation

  9

  Information on the number of machines installed in other western countries is only available up to September 1988 and is limited; estimates suggest a total of 1,300 in the United States of America, 275 in Japan, seven in Sweden and 85 in West Germany. We have currently no details of the number installed in France.

  Ultrasound Scanners
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ultrasound scanners are currently installed in England and Wales; how many are owned(a) by the private sector and (b) by the National Health Service; of the latter, how many were (i) purchased by health authorities and (ii) provided by private gift or public subscription; and if he will make available any information at his disposal on the number of such machines installed in other western countries, including the United States, Japan, Sweden, France and the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that the information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Cyclotron Machine
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from which budget the money used to purchase a cyclotron machine for St. Thomas's hospital was taken.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government grant of £6 million to the Cyclotron Trust will be funded from the Department's
  741
  hospital and community health service budget. Details of the financial and operational arrangements for the proposed project have yet to be settled in consultation with those concerned.

  Withington Hospital, Manchester
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will approve the decision of the South Manchester health authority to close a 24-bedded ward for the mentally ill at Withington hospital, Manchester; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The North Western regional health authority recently published an implementation frame-work, "Focusing on Care", which emphasises the development of district services and makes it clear that the closure of the four large mental illness hospitals in the North West region will be carried out only at a pace consistent with adequate provision for the mentally ill in the community. In addition to acute in-patient services in each district and a range of residential facilities designed to meet the needs of long term service users, the frame work envisages a range of day care facilities including more day hospital provision which all district health authorities will take forward within the annual capital spending programme for North Western region currently running at more than £90 million.

  Acute psychiatric in-patient services for central Manchester are currently based well outside the authority's boundary and are due for renewal in August 1991. Options for new provision have been submitted to the regional health authority who expect to be able to announce in the autumn a three-year capital programme from 1990–91. These options have been developed taking account of medical opinion that the services would best be provided nearer to patients and if possible attached to the Manchester Royal Infirmary.

  The South Manchester health authority announced on 13 July 1989 the temporary closure of ward P10 in Withington Hospital, Manchester from August 1989 when a refurbished ward P9 will become available for acute care in-patients in the psychiatric department of Withington hospital. As a result of discussions, I have been reassured that:
  —no patients will be discharged from Withington hospital without the responsible consultant being entirely satisfied that adequate arrangements exist in the community to assist the patient and ensure continuing medical surveillance;
  —no patient need be discharged from the Withington hospital as a result of the temporary closure of ward P10 which will not take place before the refurbished ward P9 becomes available;
  —there will be 165 beds available in the South Manchester district for acute in-patient care for mentally ill patients. The average monthly occupancy over the past 12 months has been 153.

  The South Manchester district health authority has been under acute financial pressure for a number of years and has had unfortunately to undertake a number of ward closures that have affected both Withington and Wythenshawe hospitals. There is an urgent need to re-appraise the duplicated provision of the whole range of district acute services in two major hospitals in the same district and situated within four miles of each other.

  I plan to visit in the autumn the North West regional health authority in Manchester and Withington hospital and Manchester Royal Infirmary.

  NHS Management
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will state the terms of reference of the National Health Service Policy Board, and the role and responsibilities of the National Health Service Management Executive.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  At its first meeting on 7 July the NHS policy board, established as a result of the White Paper "Working for Patients", adopted the following terms of reference:"Key principles
  The NHS Policy Board advises the Secretary of State on policy formulation for the NHS and the strategic oversight of the NHS. It does not concern itself with management responsibilities and operational detail, which are delegated from the Secretary of State to the NHS Management Executive.
  Functions
  In the light of these principles, the Board's functions are to:

  1. support Ministers by bring both NHS and wider management perspectives to bear on the formulation of policy objectives for the NHS;

  2. advise Ministers on the determination of the strategy within which the Management Executive will operate;

  3. advise Ministers on the desirability and feasibility of operational objectives proposed for the Management Executive;

  4. monitor the Management Executive's stewardship and performance.

  Relationships with the Department of Health
  The Policy Board draws on the advice and support of all those Divisions in the Department of Health which have responsibility for the development of policies applied in and through the NHS. It is particularly concerned with the overall pattern and balance of policies for the NHS, and with assessing the effectiveness of their implementation, not with the detailed formulation of specific polices."
  It also agreed the Written Statement of the role and responsibilities of the NHS management executive, a copy of which I have placed in the Library.

  Infant Deaths
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many babies died within one year of birth in 1987 and 1988;

  (2) how many babies were stillborn in 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is shown in the table:

  Number of infant deaths1 and stillborn babies, England and Wales, 1987 and 1988

  Infant deaths

  Stillborn

  1987

  6,272

  3,423

  1988

  6,270

  3,382

  1 Deaths under one year of age.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the total number of babies who died in 1987 and 1988, and to date in 1989 aged one week, two weeks, three weeks, four weeks, five weeks, six weeks, two months, three months, four months, six months, 14 months and 15 months;

  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the total number of babies who died in 1979, 1980, 1987, 1988 and 1989 aged one week, two weeks, three weeks, four weeks, five weeks, six weeks, 14 months and 15 months by area health authority;

  (3) what was the total number of abortions performed at (a) 18 weeks, (b) 20 weeks, (c) 22 weeks, (d) 24 weeks,

  743
  (e) 26 weeks and (f) 28 weeks since 1968; how many were to save the life of the pregnant woman; and what percentage the latter represents of the former.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Abortions
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women were admitted to hospital for failed attempted abortion in each year since 1959.

  Mr. Freeman
  The available information is shown in the table taken from the hospital in-patient inquiry, a 10 per cent. sample study of National Health Service hospitals in-patient records. The last data year for this study was 1985.

  The data shown are the number of patients recorded in this study with the principal diagnosis of failed attempted abortion, International Classification of Diseases (9th revision) code 638. There is no comparable code for earlier revision of the ICD, prior to 1979.

  Number of patients (10 per cent. sample) with principal diagnosis of failed attempted abortion, England and Wales 1979–81 England 1982–85

  Year

  Number in the sample

  1979

  15

  1980

  8

  1981

  6

  1982

  11

  1983

  14

  1984

  8

  1985

  11

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received recently(a) supporting and (b) opposing the amendment of the Abortion Act 1967 to include the words "serious" and "substantially" in the criteria for an abortion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  None.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's policy on the availability of abortions to minors under the age of 16 years without parental knowledge or consent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Under the Abortion Act 1967 termination of pregnancy may be carried out if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that an abortion is justified in terms of the Act.

  Parental consent to treatment of girls under 16 years of age, whether for abortion or any other condition, is not essential if, in the judgment of the doctors concerned, the treatment is in the girl's best medical interest and she has sufficient maturity and understanding to appreciate what is involved.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received(a) supporting and (b) opposing the introduction of legislation requiring that the parent or guardian of a minor under 16 years of age is informed before an abortion is performed; what percentage the latter represents of the former; and if he will make a statement.
  744
  Mr. Freeman
  One representation has been received on this subject and this supports a change in the law.

  Embryo Research
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library his Department's response to the Glover report on embryo research, commissioned by the European Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department has not responded as it was not involved in the commissioning or publication of the report. The Government do not in any case take a collective view on embryo research.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice and assistance was(a) sought by and (b) given to the Glover committee on embryo research; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Dr. Glover and his committee did not seek any advice or assistance from the Department of Health.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has held with other members of the Council of Europe on the issue of human embryo experimentation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Officials of the Department of Health have taken part in discussions of this issue by the Council of Europe's ad hoc committee of experts on bioethical issues (CAHBI).

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the European Commission concerning his proposed Bill on embryo research; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have not received any representations from the European Commission about this.

  Mental Health Act Commission
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 are in hospitals covered by the Liverpool office of the Mental Health Act Commission.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: At 30 June 1989, the most recent date for which figures are available, there were 651 patients detained at the special hospitals at Moss Side and Park Lane. At 31 December 1986, the latest date for which a figure is available centrally for all detained patients in mental illness and mental handicap hospitals and the units covered by the Liverpool area of the Mental Health Act Commission there were 1,867 detained patients.

  NHS Indemnity Scheme
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in introducing a National Health Service indemnity scheme.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: It remains the Government's intention to introduce new arrangements whereby health authorities would take financial responsibility for the negligent acts of their medical and

  745
  dental staff in the course of their NHS employment. However this is subject to a satisfactory resolution of the outstanding issues, including the financial arrangements and the handling and financing of existing liabilities. If this can be achieved, it is proposed that the scheme should come into operation on 1 January 1990.

SCOTLAND

  Trade Union Officials
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to prevent district councils from paying the salary of a full-time trade union official; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. Paid facility time for accredited trade union representatives is a matter for individual employers, subject to the requirements of section 27 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and the provisions of the ACAS code of practice on time off for trade union duties and activities.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many accesses were made to each category of the stolen and suspect vehicle index of the police national computer over the last year; and what has been the percentage growth in use of these categories over the year;

  (2) how many accesses were made to each category of the wanted and missing persons index of the police national computer over the last year; and what has been the percentage growth in use of these categories over the year;

  (3) how many accesses were made to each index of the police national computer over the last year; and whether he will include in these statistics an indication of the number of access requests that could search more than one index;

  (4) whether he has information as to the number of accesses made to the police national computer by each constabulary over the last year; and whether he can give the proportion of access requests made to the vehicle indexes of the police national computer.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is maintained on a Great Britain basis and I accordingly refer the hon. Member to the reply that he has received from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office.

  YTS
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many trainees there are in Scotland participating in YTS.

  Mr. Lang
  On 30 June 1989 there were 49,602 young people participating in YTS in Scotland.

  >Local Government
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to amend section 24(7) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 to permit the commissioner to conduct investigations in respect of alleged maladministration affecting all or most people in a local government area.
  746
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so.

  Well Woman Clinic, Glasgow
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what grounds Greater Glasgow health board closed the well woman and family planning clinic at Berryknowes Road, Glasgow; and what local consultations they engaged in.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This is a matter for Greater Glasgow health board but I will be replying to the hon. Gentleman's letter shortly.

  Owner-occupation
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the trend in owner-occupation since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  One of the Government's principal housing objectives is to maximise the opportunities for home ownership. In Scotland, the proportion of houses in owner-occupation has increased from 35 per cent. in 1979 to over 45 per cent. at present, and over the 10-year period to 1988 the number of owner-occupiers has increased from 699,000 to 944,000. This substantial progress has been achieved largely by the introduction of the right to buy scheme for public sector tenants in 1980. Since then discount levels have been increased, and we have introduced a number of further improvements to the scheme to make it easier for tenants to purchase their homes.

  Many other measures are aimed at continuing the growth of home ownership in Scotland. A major initiative has been the establishment of Scottish Homes, which has a wide range of functions, including the promotion of owner-occupation, especially for first-time buyers. We have asked Scottish Homes to introduce a scheme for house purchase under which the tenants' financial commitments will be related to their current rentt. This rens to mortgages scheme will be available to tenants of Scottish Homes and the Scottish new towns later this year.

  There are other schemes which enable tenants of housing associations and local authorities to be offered cash incentives to purchase other properties; and the Scottish Homes low cost home ownership programme assists those who cannot purchase outright to make a first step towards owning their own homes.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of patients living in the Highlands and Islands conveyed to hospital by the Scottish ambulance service in hospital cars between 22 September 1987 and 21 December 1987.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The answer is 4,015.

  Register House
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to reduce the entry charge to those seeking to undertake research at Register house.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Both the Scottish record office, at Her Majesty's General Register house,
  747
  and the General register office (Scotland), at New Register house charge to recover the costs of various services they provide, but there is no entry fee as such to either.

  Mental Health Unit, Glasgow
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the regrading and restructuring of the mental health unit of the Greater Glasgow heaith board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Statistical information on the effects of the regrading exercise on the nursing staff of the mental health unit is not held centrally. I understand that the health board is attempting to resolve a dispute with trade unions representing nurses in the unit so as to secure the lifting of an interim interdict which prevents the board from continuing with their proposals for restructuring the unit.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning nurse regrading in the mental health unit of the Greater Glasgow health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have received one anonymous letter purporting to come from a nurse employed in the mental health unit of Greater Glasgow health board.

  School Meals
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there has been a change in the take-up of school meals, resulting from the Social Security Act 1986, in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde, (c) Scotland and (d) England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on Wednesday 19 July at columns 199–200. Information about school meals in Strathclyde region is collected on an education division basis and is not available separately for Greenock and Port Glasgow. Information about the take-up of meals prior to 1989 can be found in the annual reports of the school meals census, copies of which are in the Library.

  Questions about school meals in England and Wales should be addressed to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Taxi Drivers
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many private hire taxi drivers in each Scottish local authority area have been(a) reported and (b) charged with illegal operating activities; how many of these have been prosecuted; and how many of these have been found guilty in each year since 1983.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not separately identifiable in criminal statistics, which are centrally compiled.

  Heather Burning
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will issue advice to farmers about the timing of heather burning in order to protect bird chicks; and if he will make a statement.
  748
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The permitted dates for muirburn in Scotland are set out in the Hill Farming Act 1946. Advice on this legislation and on good management practice is contained in the "Guide to Good Muirburn Practice", jointly produced by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Nature Conservancy Council and published for HMSO. A summary of this advice is contained in the leaflet "Muirburn—A Code of Practice" which is available free of charge from the Scottish agricultural colleges. In addition, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland issues a press release each year to remind farmers and crofters about the date for the end of the muirburn season and the need to take proper precautions to prevent damage to wildlife and adjoining properties.

  Suicide
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many suicides there were in prisons and young offender institutions in each of the past 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Suicides

  1979

  3

  1980

  1

  1981

  3

  1982

  3

  1983

  6

  1984

  5

  1985

  7

  1986

  7

  1987

  7

  1988

  7

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the number of incidents defined as suicide attempts in prisons and young offender institutions in each of the past 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Statistics are not kept recording the number of suicide attempts.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who has responsibility for deciding whether an accident is to be classified as a self-inflicted wound or an attempted suicide in prisons and young offender establishments.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Governors of establishments make this decision, based on the advice of their medical officers.

  Warrant Sales
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many warrant sales were carried out in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow and (b) Strathclyde in each of the past 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of warrant sales reported to Greenock sheriff court (which has Port Glasgow within its jurisdiction) and the two sheriffdoms of north Strathclyde and of south Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway from 1979 to 1988 are set out in the table:
  749

  Greenock sheriff court

  Sheriffdom north Strathclyde

  Sheriffdom of south Strathclyde Dumfries and Galloway

  1979

  7

  29

  30

  1980

  4

  15

  25

  1981

  1

  16

  30

  1982

  2

  34

  73

  1983

  1

  17

  79

  1984

  4

  41

  83

  1985

  4

  63

  86

  1986

  2

  83

  68

  1987

  —

  77

  110

  1988

  3

  123

  116

  Fishing Industry
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals concerning the introduction of a quota system for the west of Scotland prawn fishery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Landings of nephrops (prawns) by United Kingdom vessels from the west of Scotland in recent years have been, on average, between 70 and 80 per cent. of the United Kingdom's total allowable catch. Current indications are that this situation is unlikely to change markedly in 1989 and it is not therefore considered necessary to introduce a quota system for this stock at this time. Fisheries departments will, however, continue to monitor uptake of this stock closely and will take steps to control this fishery, if necessary.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has concerning the introduction of a de-commissioning scheme for fishing vessels; if such proposals contain a suggested regulation stating that any such vessel must have a pressure stock licence before being accepted for de-commissioning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Fisheries Ministers are currently considering various issues concerning the structure of the fishing industry. A number of options, including decommissioning, are being considered as possible means of dealing with the present structural difficulties within the industry.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the weight and value of landings in each of the past 10 years; and what proportion of the total United Kingdom landings were for these years.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Fish landings by United Kingdom vessels into Scotland

  Percentage of Landings into the United Kingdom

  Standard landed weight1 (thousand tonnes)

  Value at first sale (£ million)

  weight percent

  value percent

  1979

  355·0

  122·2

  42·3

  48·1

  1980

  371·4

  113·6

  49·0

  51·2

  1981

  444·0

  127·5

  59·3

  55·7

  82

  498·2

  148·7

  64·4

  57·1

  1983

  499·1

  170·2

  67·0

  60·7

  1984

  543·3

  193·9

  74·1

  65·1

  1985

  592·6

  215·1

  77·9

  66·5

  1986

  551·3

  234·5

  76·7

  64·7

  1987

  574·9

  273·6

  72·7

  62·9

  1988

  554·9

  253·1

  274·8

  262·9

  750
  1 For demersal fish (excluding Norway pout and sandeels) this generally means gutted fish with head on; for other species (including shell fish) it usually means whole fish.

  2 Provisional

  Prisoners (Telephone Services)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the maximum value of phonecard permitted for purchase by prisoners; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At Barlinnie and Perth prisons, where phonecards are in use, £1 cards are available for purchase by prisoners as necessary. Telephones for prisoners in other establishments accept coins.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the ratio of telephones to prisoners at(a) each prison, (b) Cornton Vale prison for women and (c) young offender institutions; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table. A range of factors bear on the number of telephones available for prisoners at establishments, including the level of demand for their use.

  Ratio of telephones to number of prisoners/young offenders

  Prisons

  (a) Aberdeen

  1:70

  Barlinnie

  1:113

  Dungavel

  1:53

  Edinburgh

  1:57

  Friarton

  1:73

  Glenochil

  1:39

  Greenock

  1:87

  Inverness

  1:91

  Low Moss

  1:64

  Noranside

  1:38

  Penninghame

  1:30

  Perth

  1:47

  Peterhead

  1—

  Shotts

  1:55

  (b) Cornton Vale

  1:44

  Young offenders institutions

  (c) Castle Huntley

  1:61

  Dumfries

  1:129

  Glenochil

  1:127

  Polmont

  21:391

  1 Telephones for prisoners have not been installed at Peterhead.

  2 Consideration is being given to the installation of additional telephones at Polmont.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which prisons with authority to install telephones for prisoners are still without telephones; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Telephones for prisoners have not been installed at Peterhead prison.

  Drainage Scheme, Inverness
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that the independent environmental assessment into the proposed Inverness main drainage. scheme, agreed to by Highland regional council, will be of sufficient scope to satisfy his criteria in making a subsequent decision on the planning application; and if he will make a statement.
  751
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for Highland regional council to determine the most appropriate method of complying with my right hon. and learned Friend's direction to provide an environmental statement. The statement will require to follow the criteria as laid down in the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1988 and in particular the advice given in schedule 3 of these regulations. When he receives the statement my right hon. and learned Friend will consider whether he requires further information before reaching a decision on the council's notice of intention to develop.

  Fabrication Facilities, Lewis
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cumulative total of public investment in the development of the fabrication facilities at Arnish in Lewis.

  Mr. Lang
  for reasons of commercial confidentiality figures in the form requested are not available. However, figures published in British Business show that £1·37 million was offered to Lewis Offshore in 1975 by way of regional selective assistance. In addition, grants from the Highlands and Islands development board totalled £271,000.

  Child Care
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if statistics are held centrally of places and shortages, by region or travel-to-work area, of child care facilities for working mothers.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: Statistics of child care facilities provided by regional and islands councils are set out in periodic statistical bulletins entitled "Home Care Services, Day Care Establishments and Day Service" published by the social work services group, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Dundee High School
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much surplus European Community butter and meat was allocated to Dundee high school in the last year, and during each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: No surplus European Community food has been allocated to Dundee high school under the surplus food scheme, whereby butter and beef are made available for distribution free to people in receipt of income support or family credit, or of no fixed abode or living in welfare hostels.

  However, Dundee high school is registered under the surplus butter to non-profitmaking organisations scheme and since February 1989 has been entitled to receive a maximum of 1,316 kg of reduced price butter per month.

  Drugs (Ambulance Staff)
  Mrs Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report those prescription-only drugs which ambulance staff in Scotland were allowed to administer to patients in their care prior to 30 June, and those which have subsequently been withdrawn.
  752
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: The statutory list of prescription-only medicines which can be administered by ambulance staff to patients in life-threatening circumstances is as follows:

  Adrenaline injection BP

  Atropine sulphate injection

  Chlorpheniramine injection

  Cobalt edetate injection

  >Dextrose injection strong BPC

  Diphenhydramine injection

  Hydrocortisone injection

  Mepyramine injection

  Promethazine hydrocholoride injection

  Snake venom antiserum

  Sodium nitrite injection

  Sodium thiosulphate injection

  Sterile pralidoxime

  The above medicines can be supplied to ambulance staff only on the instructions of the appropriate medical authority. The medicine for treatment of asthmatics, in use prior to 30 June, has now been re-established in ambulances.

  The list of prescription-only medicines which may be carried by ambulance staff who have had extended training in accordance with National Health training authority guidelines is now the subject of discussions between health boards and the ambulance service.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cereals Levy
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will express the figures relating to cereals co-responsibility levy payments in his answer of 18 July,Official Report, columns 97–98, in pounds sterling.

  Mr. Curry
  The figures can be expressed in £ sterling as follows:

  1986–87

  Amount of levy collected in £ million

  Levy collected divided by tonnes of national production

  Belgium

  13·39

  5·82

  Denmark

  6·97

  0·87

  Germany

  50·34

  1·97

  Greece

  2·81

  0·53

  France

  58·20

  1·16

  Ireland

  3·43

  1·91

  Italy

  25·37

  1·43

  Luxembourg

  0·23

  4·60

  Netherlands

  11·71

  9·01

  Spain

  17·75

  1·10

  United Kingdom

  39·40

  1·61

  1987–88

  Amount of levy collected in £ million

  Belgium

  12·48

  Denmark

  10·12

  Germany

  56·31

  Greece

  7·14

  France

  175·05

  Ireland

  4·49

  Italy

  29·49

  Luxembourg

  0·26

  Netherlands

  15·96

  Spain

  27·62

  United Kingdom

  56·20

  753
  These sums have been obtained by taking the average of Eurostat's monthly market exchange rates for each national currency, using a 12-month average for 1986–87 and a 13-month average for 1987–88. They do not, however, accurately reflect levy payment in the member states concerned because levy is not paid evenly throughout the course of the year. Information is not available on the monthly pattern of levy payments. This is why the figures originally provided were in national currency terms.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for East Lothian on 19 July, if he will give the average acreages of the whole farms which have been set aside in each county in England and Wales.

  Mr. Maclean
  The table shows county averages of the area set aside per farm by those participants in the scheme who in the crop year 1988–89 set aside the whole area used in the base year 1987–88 for relevant arable crops.

  Average area set-aside (Hectares)

  England

  Avon

  24·3

  Bedfordshire

  51·2

  Berkshire

  29·5

  Buckinghamshire

  33·8

  Cambridge

  36·6

  Cheshire

  12·3

  Cleveland

  15·1

  Cornwall

  29·7

  Cumbria

  153·1

  Derbyshire

  14·6

  Devon

  15·3

  Dorset

  29·4

  Durham

  26·0

  Essex

  31·5

  Gloucestershire

  31·3

  Hampshire

  36·0

  Hereford and Worcester

  28·6

  Hertfordshire

  46·3

  Humberside

  9·7

  Isle of Wight

  —

  Kent

  32·4

  Lancashire

  —

  Leicestershire

  26·7

  Lincolnshire

  76·0

  Greater London

  38·1

  Greater Manchester

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  West Midlands

  19·3

  Norfolk

  13·6

  Northamptonshire

  32·2

  Northumberland

  54·7

  Nottinghamshire

  55·1

  Oxfordshire

  26·5

  Shropshire

  —

  Somerset

  40·9

  Staffordshire

  28·1

  Suffolk

  18·6

  Surrey

  51·0

  East Sussex

  27·5

  West Sussex

  30·4

  Tyne and Wear

  —

  Warwickshire

  25·8

  Wiltshire

  54·0

  North Yorkshire

  17·5

  South Yorkshire

  13·7

  West Yorkshire

  16·4

  England average

  29·8

  754

  Average area set-aside (Hectares)

  Wales

  Dyfed

  18·7

  Gwent

  38·4

  Wales average

  24·6

  Brussels Agricultural Council
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Brussels Agricultural Council held on 24 and 25 July.

  Mr. Gummer
  The major issue at this meeting was the completion of the nine-month long negotiations over reform of the Community sheep regime, in which changes are required as part both of the CAP reforms generally and of the completion of the single market. After long and difficult discussions, in which many conflicting interests had to be reconciled, the Council reached agreement on the main elements of a new regime. Our key objectives —fair competition and no limit on the number of ewes eligible for premium—have been achieved. Other major points are:the introduction by 1 January 1993 of a single system of ewe premiums applicable throughout the Community;
  the replacing of intervention buying by provision for private storage aid;
  arrangements for transition from the various arrangements which member states apply now—including the phasing out of the variable premium in Great Britain by 1993;
  phasing out of clawback charges on Great Britain exports; after 1990, the sensitive area arrangements which have protected
  French and Irish markets from New Zealand imports will end; the separate stabiliser for Great Britain will end along with the variable premium;
  a separate all-Ireland region while the variable premium is being phased out, to protect the returns and competitive position of producers in Northern Ireland.

  This was a very satisfactory outcome for the United Kingdom. The new regime will provide United Kingdom producers with a stable basis for the future and improve prospects for exporting. When the variable premium ends the new regime will be operating in such a way as to give our producers full and fair opportunities for trading within the Community. Flexibility will be allowed over the time table for phasing out the variable premium, and I shall be having discussions with the industry on this.

  The proposals for headage limit were very significantly improved at the end of the negotiations as a result of sustained pressure from my right hon. Friend. The Commission had, with the support of most member states, proposed setting ceilings on the number of animals on which each producer could claim premium. It has been agreed instead that the full rate of premium will be paid on up to 1,000 ewes in the less favoured areas and up to 500 ewes elsewhere, and producers will receive 50 per cent. of the premium on all additional ewes without limit. This is a significant benefit for producers compared with the original proposals.

  Some important details remain to be worked out and legal texts will come to the Council for consideration in the autumn. The Commission, however, has given clear assurances that it expects the measures to be budgetarily

  755
  neutral from the end of transition. The Commission is to make proposals before the end of this year on changes in the stabiliser for the sheep sector.

  The Council indicated willingness to adopt new arrangements for the import of mutton and lamb from New Zealand, on the terms negotiated some months ago by the Commission, when regulations on the new sheep regime are adopted, but was not—because of Greek opposition—able to achieve the required unanimity to pass new arrangements for the import of New Zealand butter. It was agreed instead to extend the present arrangements by a further two months.

  The Council reviewed at length the state of the cereals sector including the operation of set-aside and the impact of drought. Many member states argued that because of reduced yields the Commission should take early action to suspend the operation of the additional coresponsibility levy. My right hon. Friend was prepared to agree with this if the Agriculture Commissioner proposed action, on condition that it was accompanied by provisions for a correction when firmer information was available and that next year's levy should be adjusted to take account of any inaccuracy this year. The Agriculture Commissioner, however insisted that, with information about the Community harvest still being uncertain, such action would be premature. My right hon. Friend yet again pressed the case for a fundamental review of the coresponsibility levy system for cereals, urging the Commission to come forward with the report promised in the last price review.

  The Council had a first discussion of Commission proposals for changes in the milk quota system designed to bring down the volume of production in excess of quota, and to make additional quota available for certain groups of producers. These proposals will be considered further in September.

  Finally, to give effect to part of the programme of assistance for Poland on which the Community recently decided, the Council agreed the emergency supply to Poland of stocks of various foodstuffs.

  Potato Marketing Board
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many employees of the Potato Marketing Board are based at Between Towns road, Cowley.

  Mr. Curry
  A total of 125 employees are based at Between Towns road, Cowley.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will be in a position to make a statement on the future of the Potato Marketing Board.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) on 20 July.

  Straw and Stubble Burning
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his assessment of the impact on the environment including the ozone layer, of the burning of straw and stubble.

  Mr. Maclean
  The effect of straw burning on the ozone layer or global warming is negligible. My Department will,756
  in 1990–91, be initiating research to measure dioxin emissions from straw burning. The careless burning of straw may cause nuisance, or damage trees, hedges or wildlife. This is why we have urged farmers to adopt alternative methods of disposal wherever possible; and to observe the local bye-laws and the NFU code of practice when burning has to be carried out.

  Fishing Vessels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any proposals for the introduction of a de-commissioning system for fishing vessles which does not require any such vessel to be in possession of a pressure stock licence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The possible introduction, and scope, of a decommissioning grants scheme remains as one of a number of options under consideration for reducing fleet capacity.

  Food Irradiation
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will outline his Department's procedure for consultation with outside bodies, including representatives of the food industry, consumer groups and pressure groups, prior to formal announcements of Government policy.

  Mr. Maclean
  When I am considering regulations or the amendment of regulations relating to food, I am required by section 118(6) of the Food Act 1984 to consult such organisations as appear to me to be representative of the interests likely to be substantially affected by the proposals in question. On other food matters both my colleagues and I and the officers of my Department maintain an ongoing dialogue where appropriate with the food industry, consumer groups and enforcement interests on the issues of the day and the possible solutions thereto.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those outside bodies he consulted and met prior to the formal announcement of Government policy on food irradiation; and if he will list the dates and durations of the meetings.

  Mr. Maclean
  Formal consultations were not undertaken prior to the recent announcement of Government policy on food irradiation: such consultations will be appropriate when detailed proposals are made.

  Conservation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 22 June,Official Report, columns 252–53, if he will list the year and the region in which the 20 conservation courses were held for agricultural development advisory service officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 July 1989]: The following is the information:
  757

  1987

  1988

  1989 (to 22 June 1989)

  1989 (planned)

  Northern

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Midlands and Western

  2

  4

  3

  —

  Eastern

  3

  2

  1

  2

  South-Eastern

  1

  2

  —

  2

  South-Western

  2

  1

  1

  6

  Wales

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Taking ADAS as a whole, most front-line advisory officers will have received conservation training by the end of the year.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training Scheme
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for Great Britain and each region the number of YTS trainees in training as at December 1987 and December 1988, showing for each gender the numbers in each training occupational group.

  Mr. Eggar
  Due to the length of the reply, I will write to the hon. Member with the information and place a copy in the Library.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest available information from the YTS leavers' survey showing the earnings of those who remain in employment following the completion of YTS for both male and female, by each ethnic group and for each United Kingdom region.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not available from the YTS leavers survey as the survey does not request earnings details.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the figures from the latest YTS leavers survey of the number of YTS leavers who recorded themselves as having some disability or handicap which affects the type of work they can do or the type of conditions they can work in, broken down to show whether they had been in YTS with (i) the private sector, (ii) the public sector, (iii) information technology centre, (iv) voluntary organisation and (v) for all types of providers.

  Mr. Eggar
  The latest period covered by the YTS leavers survey, March 1987 to February 1989, gives the results in the following table.

  Table to show the number of young people self certified as disabled or handicapped which affects the type/conditions of work

  Type of work

  Conditions can work in

  Private

  5,753

  7,095

  Public

  4,656

  4,875

  ITeC

  304

  350

  Voluntary

  1,728

  2,003

  All schemes

  12,441

  14,323

  European Social Fund Schemes
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to his written answer of 13 July to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) if he will 758
  list for the northern region the individual employment and training schemes receiving assistance from the European social fund for the current year.

  Mr. Eggar
  The following is the list of employment and training schemes in the northern region receiving assistance from the European social fund in the current year.

  Access for the Disabled

  Albright and Wilson Ltd.

  Artcare Workshops

  Blyth Star Enterprises Ltd.

  Blyth Valley Borough Council

  Cadcam Application and Training Ltd.

  Carnegie Centre for the Unemployed

  City Farm Byker

  Cleveland Co-operative Agency Ltd.

  Cleveland County Council

  Courtaulds Films, BCL Cellophane

  Cramlington Adult Information Technology Centre

  Cumbria County Council

  Derwentside District Council

  Durham Co-operative Development Association Ltd.

  Durham County Council

  Durham University Business School

  Electrolux Cookers

  Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

  Grove Coles Cranes Ltd.

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  Haswell and District Society for Mentally Handicapped

  The House of Mayfair Ltd.

  Microelectronics Applications Research

  Middlesborough Borough Council

  Middlesborough Music Collective

  National Trust

  NEI Clarke Chapman Limited

  Newcastle Children's Adventure Group

  Newcastle City Council

  Newcastle Trades Council Centre Against Unemployment

  Newcastle upon Tyne Council for Voluntary Service

  Newcastle upon Tyne University

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  Northern Region Co-operative Development Agency Limited

  Northumberland County Council

  North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council

  Owners Limited

  Projects UK

  Scotswood Employment Project

  Sheltered Housing and Workshop

  Shildon and Sedgefield District Development Agency

  South Tyneside Borough Council

  St. Anthony of Padua Community Association

  Sunderland Common Ownership Enterprise Resource

  Sunderland Polytechnic

  Sunderland Youth Employment

  Teesside Polytechnic

  Tolag Products and Company Limited

  Torrens Maritime Trust

  Training Agency

  Tyne and Wear Enterprise Trust Limited

  Tyneside Economic Development Company

  Urban Craft Design Limited

  Washington Microtechnology Centre

  West Cumbria Open Learning

  Trust Workers Educational Association Northern

  759
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he now has information on how the 1989 European social fund allocation was divided in(a) actual cash, and (b) percentage terms between (i) central Government, (ii) local government, (iii) the voluntary sector and (iv) others.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: The United Kingdom has been allocated £418 million from the European Social Fund for 1989. The breakdown in cash and percentage terms are as follows:

  £ million

  Percentage

  Central Government

  236·0

  56·5

  Local Government

  116·5

  27·9

  Voluntary Sector

  25·9

  6·2

  Others

  39·6

  9·4

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many letters were received from, and sent to, hon. Members by his Department in(a) January and (b) the whole of this Session up to 1 July.

  Mr. Eggar
  The number of letters received from hon. Members by departmental Ministers in January 1989 was 419; and 3,783 in the whole of this session up to 1 July 1989.

  The number of letters sent to hon. Members by departmental Ministers in January 1989 was 358; and 3,766 in the whole of this session up to 1 July.

  Information on the number of letters received from and sent to hon. Members by the rest of the Department is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the revised numbers of approved places allocated under employment training, what are the area budgets for the programme, and what are the allocations of supplementary grant, for each training agency area.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Up to 265,000 employment training places have been allocated for 1989–90. Detailed regional and area plans are under consideration by the Training Agency head office.

  Liverpool City Council (Black Employees)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage of black people employed by the Liverpool city council at the latest date.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not separately distinguishable in statistics held centrally.

  Benefit Claimants
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many claimants in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow and (b) Strathclyde were suspended from receipt of unemployment benefit during the period April 1988 to May 1989 for failing to demonstrate good cause for the termination of their last employment.
  760
  Mr. Nicholls
  Information is not available in the precise form requested.

  For the period 1 January 1988 to 31 March 1989, the number of persons in Scotland, who were disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit because they were considered to have left their employment voluntarily without just cause was 32,128.

  Figures on the number of persons disqualified for leaving their employment voluntarily without just cause in the Greenock and Port Glasgow and Strathclyde areas are not collected separately, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Race Relations (Liverpool)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, in the light of the report of the Liverpool 8 inquiry into race relations in Liverpool, he will initiate further Government measures in Liverpool 8 with a view to substantially reducing black unemployment in the area; and if he will give a report.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department operates a wide range of employment and training programmes designed to give unemployed people throughout the country the skills, confidence and motivation they need to compete for jobs. In many deprived areas these programmes are tailored to the needs of disadvantaged groups, including ethnic minorities, and we will continue to give a high priority to districts such as Liverpool 8. For example, Liverpool has been selected as one of the pilot areas for the new job interview guarantee which will give employers more incentive to recruit unemployed people from the inner cities. The pilot will be targetted on the Toxteth and Williamson square jobcentres.

  Labour Statistics (Liverpool)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many black persons were unemployed in Liverpool 8 at the latest date; and what this represents as a percentage of the population;

  (2) how many young black people have been unemployed in Liverpool 8 for more than (a) two years and (b) five years respectively.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months compared with the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: The Government's priorities in helping small businesses are to create a climate in which they can flourish and to provide measures that support and stimulate their development. An improved climate has been achieved primarily through the Government's measures to control inflation and to reduce both the rates of taxation and the level of unnecessary burdens placed on small firms.
  761
  Measures operated by my Department to assist small businesses include:

  The Small Firms Service which provides information and business counselling to new and established businesses. In the last financial year, the service answered over 281,000 enquiries (an increase of 6 per cent. on 1987–88), handled over 30,000 new counselling cases (an increase of 12 per cent. on 1987–88), and conducted over 43,000 counselling sessions (an increase of 10 per cent. on 1987–88);

  The loan guarantee scheme. Over the past 12 months usage of the scheme has greatly increased. Applications are currently averaging 240 a month compared with last year's average of 164 per month. This increase has been due in part to the introduction of simplified procedures for loans up to £15,000 and a re-launch of the scheme in April 1989 when it was extended and enhanced following a major evaluation exercise. Changes made included increasing the maximum loan size fom £75,000 to £100,000;

  The enterprise training element of employment training and the business enterprise programme. These help people set up in business through the provision of targeted training in all the basic aspects of business. The combined number of entrants to these programmes increased by 22 per cent. from 43,489 in 1987–88 to 53,003 in 1988–89. In addition, the graduate enterprise programme helps graduates take the first steps to setting up businesses on their own. The number of entrants to this programme rose from 155 in 1987–88 to 1,150 in 1988–89. Business growth training has now been introduced to provide help to established firms to develop their business and management skills.

  My Department also provides financial assistance through the enterprise allowance scheme and makes substantial grants available to "Business in the Community", local enterprise agencies and the Prince's youth business trust, among others.

  The Department monitors it's schemes with a view to assessing additionality, job creation, displacement and other relevant factors. Evaluation reports on particular schemes are published. Overall the success of these measures has been reflected in substantial and accelerating growth of the small business sector.

  Over the period 1980 to 1986 the net increase in the number of VAT-registered businesses averaged nearly 500 per week. The average figure increased to nearly 900 a week in 1987 and indications are that the rate of increase in 1988 has been even faster, perhaps as much as 1,200 per week. Between 1979 and 1989 the number of self employed people increased by 61 per cent. to approximately 3·1 million.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Fund Refusals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in(a) Doncaster and (b) Mexborough areas of South Yorkshire, who were refused loans by social fund officers during the period April 1988 to the end of June 1989, on the basis that they had insufficient income to repay these loans, were advised to apply for community care grants; and, of this total, how many were granted.
  762
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The guidance in the "Social Fund Manual" (a copy of which is in the Library), makes it clear to social fund officers that on receipt of an application for a loan, they should bear in mind the possibility that a community care grant may be appropriate. It is not necessary for the applicant to be advised to apply separately for a grant and therefore the information requested is not collected. However, statistical information is available which shows that between April 1988 and the end of June 1989, on 122 occasions in the Doncaster area covered by the Doncaster, East arid Doncaster, West local offices, and on 66 occasions in the Mexborough area covered by the Wath on Dearne local office, a grant was awarded instead of a loan for which an application was made.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask, the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in(a) Doncaster and (b) Mexborough areas of South Yorkshire have been refused loans by social fund officers for the period April 1988 to the end of June 1989 on the basis that they have insufficient income to repay these loans.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information is not collected on the number of people refused loans or grants. The figures collected are based on applications. Between April 1988 and the end of June 1989, on 148 occasions in the Doncaster area covered by the Doncaster, East and Doncaster, West ILOs, and on 18 occasions in the Mexborough area, covered by the Wath on Dearne ILO, the social fund officer refused a loan application giving as a reason the applicants' inability to repay.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in(a) Greenock and (b) Port Glasgow who were refused loans by social fund officers during the period April 1988 to the end of June 1989, on the basis that they had insufficient income to repay these loans, were advised to apply for community care grants; and, of this total, how many were granted.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The guidance in the "Social Fund Manual" (a copy of which is in the Library), makes it clear to social fund officers that on receipt of an application for a loan, they should bear in mind the possibility that a community care grant may be appropriate. It is not necessary for the applicant to be advised to apply separately for a grant and therefore the information requested is not collected. However, statistical information is available which shows that between April 1988 and the end of June 1989, on 18 occasions in the Greenock area, and on 78 occasions in the Port Glasgow area, a grant was awarded instead of a loan for which an application was made.

  Family Incomes
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his reply to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) of 30 March,Official Report columns 545–8, showing (a) net spending power for a lone mother with two children aged four and eight years when (i) not working, (ii) earning £20 a week for part-time work, (iii) earning £40 a week for part-time work and (iv) working full-time and earning £60 through to £200 a week in steps of £10, (b) net spending power for a single-wage married couple with two children aged four and six years,

  763
  (i) not working, (ii) earning £20 a week part-time, (iii) earning £40 a week part-time and (iv) working full time and earning £60 through to £200 a week in steps of £10.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is set out in the tables. It shoud be noted that the results are hypothetical because the results are based on average local authority housing charges and do not reflect the wide variety of rents and domestic rates that people actually pay.

  Lone mother with two children aged 4 and 8

  October 1989

  (assuming average local authority rent and rates)

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  National insurance

  Take home pay

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rates rebate

  Total net income

  Net income after housing costs

  60·00

  0·00

  2·39

  57·61

  46·23

  19·70

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  123·54

  93·04

  70·00

  0·00

  3·29

  66·71

  39·86

  19·70

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  126·27

  95·77

  80·00

  0·00

  4·19

  75·81

  33·49

  19·70

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  129·00

  98·50

  90·00

  1·47

  5·09

  83·44

  28·15

  19·70

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  131·29

  100·79

  100·00

  3·97

  5·99

  90·04

  23·53

  19·70

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  133·27

  102·77

  110·00

  6·47

  6·89

  96·64

  18·91

  19·70

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  135·25

  104·75

  120·00

  8·97

  7·79

  103·24

  14·29

  19·70

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  137·23

  106·73

  130·00

  11·47

  8·69

  109·84

  9·67

  19·70

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  139·21

  108·71

  140·00

  13·97

  9·59

  116·44

  5·05

  19·70

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  141·19

  110·69

  150·00

  16·47

  10·49

  123·04

  0·00

  19·70

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  142·74

  112·24

  160·00

  18·97

  11·39

  129·64

  0·00

  19·70

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  149·34

  118·84

  170·00

  21·47

  12·29

  136·24

  0·00

  19·70

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  155·94

  125·44

  180·00

  23·97

  13·19

  142·84

  0·00

  19·70

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  162·54

  132·04

  190·00

  26·47

  14·09

  149·44

  0·00

  19·70

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  169·14

  138·64

  200·00

  28·97

  14·99

  156·04

  0·00

  19·70

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  175·74

  145·24

  Tax and benefit system from April 1989—single wage married couple with two children aged 4 and 6 (assuming average local authority rent and rates)

  Not working 1 year on benefit

  Working part-time £20 earnings

  Working part-time £40 earnings

  Income Support

  70·30

  55·30

  35·30

  Gross Earnings

  0·00

  20·00

  40·00

  Tax

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  National Insurance

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  Rent

  21·50

  21·50

  21·50

  Single-wage married couple with 2 children aged 4 and 8, October 1989

  (assuming average local authority rent and rates)

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  NI

  Take home pay

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rales

  Rate rebate

  Total net income

  Net income after housing costs

  60·00

  0·00

  2·39

  57·61

  46·23

  14·50

  21·50

  6·20

  9·00

  2·49

  127·03

  96·53

  70·00

  0·00

  3·29

  66·71

  39·86

  14·50

  21·50

  4·42

  9·00

  1·95

  127·44

  96·94

  80·00

  0·00

  4·19

  75·81

  33·49

  14·50

  21·50

  2·65

  9·00

  1·40

  127·85

  97·35

  90·00

  1·47

  5·09

  83·44

  28·15

  14·50

  21·50

  1·16

  9·00

  0·94

  128·19

  97·69

  100·00

  3·97

  5·99

  90·04

  23·53

  14·50

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·55

  128·62

  98·12

  110·00

  6·47

  6·89

  96·64

  18·91

  14·50

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  130·05

  99·55

  120·00

  8·97

  7·79

  103·24

  14·29

  14·50

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  132·03

  101·56

  130·00

  11·47

  8·69

  109·84

  9·67

  14·50

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  134·01

  103·51

  140·00

  13·97

  9·59

  116·44

  5·05

  14·50

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  135·99

  105·49

  150·00

  16·47

  10·49

  123·04

  0·00

  14·50

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  137·54

  107·04

  160·00

  18·97

  11·39

  129·84

  0·00

  14·50

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  144·14

  113·64

  170·00

  21·47

  12·29

  136·24

  0·00

  14·50

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  150·74

  120·24

  764

  Tax and benefit system from April 1989—lone mother with two children aged 4 and 8

  (assuming average local authority rent and rates)

  Not working 1 year on benefit

  Working part-time £20 earnings

  Working part-time £40 earnings

  Income Support

  49·10

  44·10

  24·10

  Gross Earnings

  0·00

  20·00

  40·00

  Tax

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  National Insurance

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  Rent

  21·50

  21·50

  21·50

  Rent Rebate

  21·50

  21·50

  21·50

  Rates

  9·00

  9·00

  9·00

  Rates Rebate

  7·20

  7·20

  7·20

  Child Benefit

  19·70

  19·70

  19·70

  Free School Meals

  2·70

  2·70

  2·70

  Free Welfare Milk

  1·83

  1·83

  1·83

  Net Income

  71·53

  86·53

  86·53

  After Housing Costs

  Not working 1 year on benefit

  Working part-time £20 earnings

  Working part-time £40 earnings

  Rent Rebate

  21·50

  21·50

  21·50

  Rates

  9·00

  9·00

  9·00

  Rates Rebate

  7·20

  7·20

  7·20

  Child Benefit

  14·50

  14·50

  14·50

  Free School Meals

  2·70

  2·70

  2·70

  Free Welfare Milk

  1·83

  1·83

  1·83

  Net Income

  87·53

  92·53

  92·53

  After Housing Costs

  765

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  NI

  Take home pay

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Total net income

  Net income after housing costs

  180·00

  23·97

  13·19

  142·84

  0·00

  14·50

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  157·34

  126·84

  190·00

  26·47

  14·09

  149·44

  0·00

  14·50

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  163·94

  133·44

  200·00

  28·97

  14·99

  156·04

  0·00

  14·50

  21·50

  0·00

  9·00

  0·00

  170·54

  140·04

  Benefits (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in(a) Doncaster and (b) Mexborough areas of South Yorkshire are in receipt of (a) retirement pensions, (b) widows' benefits, (c) unemployment benefit, (d) sickness benefit, (e) invalidity benefit, (f) industrial disablement benefits, (g) industrial death benefit, (h) maternity allowance, (i) non-contributory retirement pension, (j) war pension, (k) attendance allowance and (l) invalid allowance.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that information is not available in the precise form requested. Nor are local figures held of the numbers of people receiving(a) retirement pensions, (b) widows' benefits, (f) industrial disablement benefits, (g) industrial death benefit, (i) non-contributory retirement pension, (j) war pension, (k) attendance allowance and (l) invalid care allowance.

  With the exception of unemployment benefit the table shows, as at 30 June 1989, the latest date for which the information is available, the numbers of sickness/invalidity benefit and maternity allowance claimants at the Department's local offices at Doncaster, East, Doncaster, West and Mexborough which serve the Don Valley constituency although their boundaries are not conterminous.

  Doncaster East

  Doncaster West

  Mexborough

  Sickness/Invalidity Benefit1

  4,708

  6,099

  2,261

  Maternity Allowance

  29

  50

  4

  Unemployed claimants

  Doncaster Local Authority Area

  Mexborough Election Ward

  As at 8 June 1989

  14,158

  1,015

  Source:

  100 per cent count of cases in action. The figures quoted may include a number of cases not actually in receipt of benefit. Data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Notes:

  1The local office count of cases in action does not distinguish between sickness and invalidity benefit.

  2Numbers shown are included in the figure for the Doncaster local authority area.

  Turkish Asylum-seekers
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that asylum-seekers from Turkey who have entered the United Kingdom with a limited leave visa are eligible for income support.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In cases where a Turkish asylum-seeker is given only limited leave to enter this country, income support at a reduced rate may be claimed.

  Residential Homes
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current minimum and maximum difference in(a) Inverclyde and (b) Strathclyde between charges levied by private residential homes and the maximum weekly payment made by his Department; and how many elderly people have been removed from residential homes in Inverclyde and Strathclyde in each of the last three years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The level of charges in a residential care home is a matter between the residents and the owners of the home. Information on the fees charged by individual homes and the numbers of people removed from homes is not collected centrally.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the maximum weekly payment made by his local offices in(a) Inverclyde and (b) Strathclyde to support elderly people in private residential and private nursing homes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The maximum weekly payments from income support towards fees in residential care homes and nursing homes respectively are:

  £

  £

  For the elderly

  140

  190

  For the very dependent elderly

  155

  —

  For the terminally ill

  —

  230

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the latest figures for the number of people caring for another person who, because a claim for attendance allowance has not been determined within the 26 weeks allowed, either(a) are required to be available for work as a condition of getting income support, or (b) would not be treated as available for work but are paid reduced income support, with the voluntary unemployment deduction applied on grounds of hardship.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret the information requested is not available.

  Family Support
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour),Official Report, 18 July, column 39–40, if he will show the amount of support received in 1978–79 and 1988–89 by the following categories (a) single payments for maternity expenses and any other single payments identifiable as support for families such as beds, safety gates and high chairs: (b) expenditure on welfare foods for pregnant women and under-fives and (c) free school meals.
  767
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested. The single payments scheme came into existence in November 1980—succeeding exceptional needs payments for which there is no information on maternity expenses. The first data collected were in the December 1981 "Annual Statistical Enquiry". This showed that single payments totalling £2·6 million has been made for maternity expenses. However, as the information relates to payments made in the 12 months preceding the inquiry to claimants in receipt of benefit at the time of the inquiry it does not record all the single payments made in the year.

  Social fund maternity payments replaced the single payments provision in April 1987. Payments totalling £15 million were made in 1988–89.

  Neither the single payments nor social fund data identify payments made as support for families.

  Responsibility for expenditure on welfare foods and school meals lies with my hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, respectively.

  Income Support
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, West, of 4 July,Official Report, column 137, whether he will publish in the Official Report a table accounting for the differences between the illustrative income support rates in the technical annex to the 1985 White Paper and the rates introduced in April 1988, showing the effect of each of the factors contributing to those differences.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  As made clear in the document, the rates published in the technical annex to the 1985 White paper were purely illustrative. The actual income support rates were set taking account of the circumstances at the time.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what amount of deduction in the calculation of the April 1988 income support rates the adjustments to provide help towards the requirement to make a minimum contribution to domestic rates referred to in the reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, West, of 4 July,Official Report, column 137, was included for the purpose of meeting part of the cost of that help; and what were the amounts of the adjustments before and after such deductions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There were no deductions from the adjustments referred to.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what continuing monitoring he is making of the effect of the reform of social security; and what is his latest estimate of the percentage of claimants on income support who are receiving less than they would have under the previous rules for supplementary benefit uprated for price inflation.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We are continuing to monitor all aspects of the social security reforms.

  Estimates of the effects of the reforms on income support beneficiaries were set out in the booklet "Impact Of The Reformed Structure Of Income-Related Benefits" published in October 1987, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the annual report of the social fund commissioner.

  Mr. Newton
  I am pleased to announce that I have today published the social fund commissioner's annual report for 1988–89. I have placed copies in the Library.

  The report describes, as required by statute, the standards of review achieved by social fund inspectors. I am grateful to the commissioner for this, for the advice and assistance she has given the social fund inspectors in undertaking their important role of independent review of social fund officers' decisions, and for setting up the organisation in this first and crucial year.

  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications were made for grants from the social fund in the year 1988–89 in the Paisley, North constituency.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Paisley, North constituency is served by the Department's office at Paisley.

  Between 11 April 1988 and 31 March 1989, 1,308 applications for community care grants from the social fund were made to the Paisley office.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in(a) Greenock and (b) Port Glasgow have been refused loans by social fund officers for the period April 1988 to the end of June 1989 on the basis that they had insufficient income to repay these loans.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information is not collected on the number of people refused loans or grants. The figures collected are based on applications. Between April 1988 and the end of June 1989, on 112 occasions in the Greenock area, and on 87 occasions in the Port Glasgow area, the social fund officer refused a loan application giving as a reason the applicant's inability to repay.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what independent research into the social fund he has commissioned.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to my hon. Friend the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 24 May 1989 at columns 544–45.

  Community Care
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many community care grants were refused by his Department's office in Paisley to people living in the areas of priority treatment known as Ferguslie, Shortroods and Moorpark, Renfrew; and if he will list the total number of clients refused in the Paisley, North constituency in 1988–89;

  (2) how many community care loans were made to constituents of Paisley North and how much was loaned to clients in areas of priority treatment in (a) Ferguslie, (b) Moorpark and (c) Shortroods in 1988–89.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications have been made for
  769
  community care grants at the social security offices in (a) Paisley, (b) Johnstone, (c) Port Glasgow and (d) Greenock.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information for the period 11 April 1988 to 30 June 1989 is contained in the table.

  Office

  Applications for grants

  (a) Paisley

  1,899

  (b) Johnstone

  1,179

  (c) Port Glasgow

  1,169

  (d) Greenock

  1,461

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were refused community care grants at each Renfrewshire social security office.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department's offices in Renfrewshire are Paisley, Port Glasgow, Greenock, and Johnstone, but the boundaries are not conterminous.

  The information requested can be obtained from the data in the Library.

  Ministerial Visit (Crosby)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his official visit to Crosby.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State visited the Department's local office in Crosby on 30 June 1989. Crosby is one of 23 pilot offices which are rigorously testing three major computer systems in our computerisation programmeߞthe operational strategy—before it is extended to cover the rest of our local office network from October. The purpose of the visit was to meet the staff and to see how the operational strategy was performing in a pilot office. The office was open to the press on the day of the visit so that they could see the systems demonstrated. Despite industrial action by some staff my right hon. Friend was able to meet other members of staff and the visit was both informative and successful.

  Loans (Renfrewshire)
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people received loans from each of his Department's offices in Renfrewshire since 1988–89.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department's offices in Renfrewshire are Paisley, Port Glasgow, Greenock, and Johnstone, but the boundaries are not conterminous.

  Details of loan applications processed and awards made for each of the offices are available in the Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by each charging authority in Wales the income level at which(a) a single person aged under 25 years,(b) a single person aged over 25 years, (c) a single pensioner, (d) a pensioner couple and (e) a couple with two children, all with no savings, would lose entitlement to a community charge rebate assuming the safety-netted community charge figures for 1989–90 with the latest safety net arrangements.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the former Parliamentary 770
  Under-Secretary of State on 15 June at column 531–34 which gave the information requested using the assumption that the full safety net was in operation. The implications for the safety net of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales announcement on 20 July on local government finance in Wales in 1990–91 have yet to be determined.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much of benefit expenditure on lone parents including lone parent benefit, income support, family credit and housing benefit, is recouped from the absent parents; and what proportion of total outlay this amount represents.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: The Department has power to recoup benefit expenditure on lone parent families only where income support is in payment. Where parents are divorced or unmarried recovery applies only to benefit in respect of the children.

  Based on the latest available figures for May 1988, lone parents receive income support of £1,789 million per annum net of £88 million maintenance paid direct to the lone parent. The Department collects a further £43 million from the absent parents. It is also estimated that a possible further £25 million may be saved in cases where DSS takes action on maintenance and the need for benefit is removed altogether.

  Benefit expenditure saved therefore amounts to approximately 8 per cent. of what is estimated would have been spent on lone parent families but for the Department's action on maintenance. It is not possible to say how much of the total was recoverable.

  Pensioners
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to his reply to the hon. Member far Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) of 3 July,Official Report column 43, if he will place in the Library his calculation showing that the living standards of pensioners have risen by 23 per cent. since 1979 in real terms; if he will break his calculation down by decile and quintile group, with and without housing benefits; and if he will use equivalised and non-equivalised figures in each case.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: In 1979 pensioners average total net income was £72·90; by 1986 this had risen to £89·80 (both at 1986 prices and rounded to 10p). This represents a real terms increase of 23 per cent.

  The real terms increase in pensioners average total net income by quintile is as follows:

  Per cent.

  Non-equivalised

  Equivalised

  Q1 (lowest)

  20

  17

  Q2

  23

  20

  Q3

  21

  20

  Q4

  20

  21

  Q5 (highest)

  27

  30

  All

  23

  23

  Source: Family Expenditure survey 1986.

  The real terms increase in pensioners average total net income by decile is as follows:
  771

  Per cent.

  Non-equivalised

  Equivalised

  Dl (lowest)

  18

  16

  D2

  21

  18

  D3

  23

  19

  D4

  23

  20

  D5

  21

  20

  D6

  21

  20

  D7

  21

  20

  D8

  20

  22

  D9

  22

  23

  D10 (highest)

  29

  35

  All

  23

  23

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey 1986.

  It is not possible to perform the calculation with and without housing benefits because until 1983 help with housing costs was provided partly through supplementary benefit.

ENVIRONMENT

  Private Tenancies
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has made any estimate of the increase in the number of private tenancies as a result of the provisions of the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Chope
  No. The provisions of part I of the Housing Act 1988 deregulating the private rented sector have been in force for only just over six months and it is too soon to evaluate their impact. We shall carry out a detailed evaluation as soon as practicable.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of council house sales in Lambeth at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Howard
  Lambeth sold about 520 dwellings in 1988–89.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of council house sales in Tower Hamlets at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chope
  Tower Hamlets has reported 1,276 sales under the right to buy, for the financial year 1988–89, this excludes May and June 1988 for which no monthly reports were made.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in England since May 1979.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on 28 June 1989 at column 480, by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier).

  Housing Allocation (Leicester)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the housing allocation made to Leicester city council for the years 1989–90.

  Mr. Chope
  Leicester's basic allocation of £8,955 million was the largest for any local authority of comparable size outside London.

  Local Authorities (Trading Practices)
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take action against those local authorities which attempt to evade the provisions of the Local Government Act 1988 by unfair trading practices.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Yes.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of people, in percentage terms, who have complied with the community charge registration process in England and Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  We shall not have information on the total number included in community charges registers until December 1989. It is clear, however, that in most authorities the first stage of the registration process is proceeding well.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the possible options for need assessments under the new system of local government finance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  On 12 July we discussed a report by officials, which contains a range of options for standard spending assessments, with the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. My right hon. Friend will not be taking any final decisions until the autumn.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the cost of introducing a system of local government finance based on capital value rates plus local income tax.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Labour party's two-tax system could cost up to four times as much to administer as the existing rating system.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the level of safety net for local authorities under Her Majesty's Government's new system of local government finance.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The safety net is the result of the old system of local government finance. I refer the hon. Member to the statement made to the House on 19 July by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment, which contained full details of the proposed safety net.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take to ensure that tenants in the private rented sector are not put in the position of paying the community charge without a corresponding deduction in the rate element of their rent.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Protected tenants paying rents which include rates will have the normal protection of the Rent Act 1977 for tenancies entered into before 15 January 1989, and may register fair rents which are exclusive of rates. The Housing Act 1988 will apply to most tenancies entered into after that date, and any rents determined by the rent assessment committee under that Act will be
  773
  exclusive of rates. Any reductions in inclusive rents arising from the introduction of community charge should be settled on the basis of individual contracts. The Department will be producing shortly a booklet on the impact between the community charge and rents in the series "You and the Community Charge".

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what medical advice he has considered in deciding to exclude severe dementia sufferers from community charge exemption.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) on 28 June at column 482.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Professor Elaine Murphy of Guy's hospital, London as to the viability of assessing severe dementia for the purposes of community charge exemption; and what response he has made.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Professor Murphy wrote to my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Local Government on 6 July about this matter. I am now considering her letter and have agreed to meet professor Murphy to discuss it.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further consideration he has given to the impact of poll tax registration on the levels of electoral registration in the light of early experience of registration.

  Mr. David Hunt
  If there is any impact of community charge registration on electoral registration it can be connected only with the misleading use of the term "poll tax" for party political purposes.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any illustrative figures to show the level of poll tax to be levied in Nottingham in 1990–91.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no illustrative comunity charge figures for 1990–91. Illustrative community charges published on 19 July reflect 1989–90 local authority responsibilities and levels of expenditure.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the criteria determining whether a local authority should be(a) a gainer or (b) a loser from the community charge safety net (i) in the estimates given for hypothetical community charges in 1988–89 and (ii) in the estimates given on 19 July for hypothetical community charges in 1989–90.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Areas which are shown as gaining from the safety net are those in which the total of community charges assumed to be raised from residents is higher than the total of domestic rates. Conversely, areas contributing to the safety net are those where the total of community charges are assumed to be lower.

  Details of the calculations for illustrative community charges for 1988–89 and 1989–90 were contained in the explanatory notes accompanying the tables placed in the Library on 23 June 1988 and 19 July 1989, respectively.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each charging authority the 774
  average rate per adult charged in 1989–90, showing also the averages for each region, inner London, outer London and the rest of the south east separately, and for England as a whole.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A rate per pound of rateable value was charged by each charging authority in 1989–90. There was no rate per adult.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what a senior ward sister currently living in a flat in Battersea would pay for her local services under(a) the community charge, and (b) a system of capital value rates and local income tax allocated on an 80/20 basis.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In 1989–90 a ward sister earning £15,000 living alone in a flat Battersea worth £70,000 would pay a community charge of £375 (disregarding the transitional safety net) and £639 under a system of capital value rates plus local income tax.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has developed any fresh proposals to reduce homelessness.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek powers to redirect the resources currently spent on bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless people towards the provision of purpose built accommodation for them.

  Mr. Chope
  I am currently reviewing the homelessness legislation and hope to announce conclusions soon. But it is for local authorities to determine how to direct resources to meet their local housing needs. My Department has consistently advised that the best use must be made of existing stock to house the homeless before recourse to temporary accommodation and that bed-and-breakfast hotels should be used only as a last resort, especially for families.

  New Town Housing (Warrington)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new town houses have been built in Warrington since the inception of the new town development corporation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  A total of 13,126 owner-occupied and rented dwellings have been provided in Warrington under the new town development programme, an excellent achievement by the development corporation.

  International Initiatives
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the Government are taking to develop international initiatives to conserve the world's environment.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Global climate change represents the greatest threat to the world's environment and the
  775
  Government have called for the support of all nations in preparing an international framework convention. This call was endorsed by the governing council of the United Nations environment programme (UNEP) in June and by the economic summit in Paris on 16 July. The summit also supported the United Kingdom's proposals to phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons, to give added momentum to international work on integrating environment and economic decision making, to safeguard tropical forests and to strengthen the United Nations environmental institutions, especially UNEP.

  Town Halls
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on expenditure by local authorities on the construction of new town halls.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In the financial year 1987–88, capital expenditure on new construction for general adminstration by local authorities in England was £123 million.

  Vacant Properties
  Mrs. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to ensure that local authority houses are not left vacant.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State awaits the results of a survey by our Department of local authority empty property and will then consider action, in consultation with the local authority associations.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the expected level of provision of the Housing Corporation for 1991–92.

  Mr. Howard
  Current plans provide for gross capital expenditure by the Housing Corporation in 1991–92 of £1,328 million.

  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of funding for the Housing Corporation in 1988–89.

  Mr. Howard
  The Housing Corporation's gross capital expenditure in 1988–89 was £791·3 million.

  Unified Business Rate
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the transitional mechanisms to be introduced in connection with the unified business rate.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Some 150 initial responses have been received to our consultation paper and we have had many more representations subsequently.

  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the National Hairdressers Federation in respect of the likely impact of the unified business rate upon hairdressing salons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The National Hairdressers' Federation's letter of 29 May was taken into account in settling the transitional arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State on 19 July.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of English Heritage; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State met Lord Montagu on 5 May when he opened English Heritage's new offices in Newcastle and discussed a number of heritage issues.

  Ivory Imports
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he gave to the position of the legitimate ivory trade in imposing a unilateral ban on ivory imports.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We recognised that the ban would affect the legitimate ivory trade, but this was outweighed by the need for immediate action to protect the African elephant pending decisions on a long-term strategy for its future survival.

  Mortgage Repayments
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to assist people getting into difficulties with mortgage repayment.

  Mr. Chope
  Any person who falls into difficulty with mortgage repayments should contact his or her lender as soon as possible. Responsible lenders will be sympathetic and willing to help.

  There are also independent organisations which offer advice to people in this situation. The Government give grants to 20 voluntary bodies which provide such a service.

  Environmental Safety (Symbols)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has discussed for introducing a recognisable symbol for environment safety on consumer products.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Officials, together with officials from the Department of Trade and Industry, have recently studied the issues raised by environmental labelling for consumer products and have spoken to a range of interested parties, including representatives of consumers, producers, retailers and environmentalists. This study has taken account of the experience of the Blue Angel environmental labelling scheme in the Federal Republic of Germany, and of developments in the European Community. We shall make known our conclusions on this study in due course.

  Information Office
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to establish an information office which will provide detailed evidence as to the state of the environment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government are considering how best to present the public with the facts about the quality of the environment.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of new cars are capable of running on unleaded petrol.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Ninety six per cent. of new cars registered in May could use unleaded petrol. 70 per cent. could run on unleaded petrol straight away and the remaining 26 per cent. after adjustment.

  Rugby Union
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet representatives of the Rugby Union; and what subjects he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 22 June at column 202.

  Large Firms
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has had any recent discussions on environmental matters with the firms BP, Barclays Bank, Inchcape, BAT Industries or Shell.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I meet representatives of the oil industry to help promote the use of unleaded petrol.

  I discuss environmental matters generally with individuals, local authorities, voluntary organisations and industry on all possible occasions.

  Local Government Services (Contracting Out)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of councils in England and Wales now contract out local government services; and how much has been saved since 1981 as a result of such contracting out.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Under part I of the Local Government Act 1988, all authorities in England and Wales are required to introduce competition for certain services, starting on 1 August 1989. Previous studies of voluntary competition indicate that savings of 20–30 per cent. have been achieved.

  Pollution
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at what date part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 was implemented.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The main provisions of part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 were brought into force between July 1984 and October 1986. These provided for more effective protection of inland, surface and underground waters, the extension of controls to cover all coastal and estuarial waters and public involvement, for the first time, in the water pollution control system. These provisions are re-enacted and where appropriate strengthened in the Water Act.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much toxic waste per annum is generated and treated or landfilled in the United Kingdom.
  778
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In 1987–88 the estimated arisings of special waste in the United Kingdom were 2,036,000 tonnes.

  Sewerage Charges
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the construction industry about the likely cost of sewerage and water connection charges following privatisation of the water industry.

  Mr. Howard
  I have had one meeting with representatives of the House Builders Federation, and my officials have held two meetings with them to discuss the detailed arrangements for introducing a charge at the time new connections are made to water mains arid public sewers under powers included in the Water Act 1989.

  Bathing Water
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many years were given to member states to identify a full list of bathing waters for the purposes of the 1975 bathing waters directive.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many bathing waters complied with the 1975 European Community bathing waters directive in(a) May 1979 and (b) May 1989.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan).

  Estate Action
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much estate action money will be allocated to Lambeth this year.

  Mr. Chope
  This largely depends on Lambeth's progress in finalising its proposals for estate action work. The Department's estimate is that some £1 million will be allocated to the borough.

  Open Spaces (Bristol)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning action by the Bristol urban district council to acquire land used by people of Bristol as open space for unscheduled development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Moynihan
  Bristol city council made representations, after it was consulted about the proposed vesting of land at St. Anne's road which is likely to be needed for a road junction improvement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment decided not to proceed with the vesting order but to allow an opportunity for negotiation to see whether the development corporation can acquire the land by agreement.

  Merseyside Development Corporation (Jobs)
  Mr Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many jobs have been created within the area covered by the Merseyside development corporation since its inception.
  779
  Mr. Moynihan
  Since the Merseyside development corporation was established, 3,500 permanent jobs have been created in the designated area. The corporation's regeneration programme has also led to on site construction jobs of about 1,000 man years work annually.

  City Waterways
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the cleaning and dredging of city waterways.

  Mr. Howard
  The Department has no record of any recent representations.

  Rents
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has made any assessment of the increase in rents in the private sector following the introduction of market rents for new tenancies in January of this year.

  Mr. Chope
  It is too soon to make such an assessment.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has made any assessment of affordable rent levels in the private and public rented sector.

  Mr. Chope
  Housing Benefit is intended to ensure that assistance is available to households whose rent might otherwise not be affordable.

  First-time Buyers
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any further plans to assist first-time buyers.

  Mr. Chope
  Under this Government the number of owner-occupiers has risen dramatically by over 3 million. More people now own their homes than ever before. We do not believe that further general incentives to owner-occupation are necessary.

  However, we are funding through the Housing Corporation shared ownership schemes run by housing associations which allow people to enter the housing market by purchasing part of the equity in their homes, and paying rent on the balance.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider making changes to section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to help local first-time buyers along similar lines to those the Welsh Office has announced it is considering for Wales.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend's statement of 3 February at column 433 indicated the basis on which planning authorities in rural areas in England may wish to release small additional sites for development where there is evidence of a local need for low cost housing. The draft planning guidance issued by the Welsh Office on 30 June is on broadly similar lines, but with specific reference to conditions in Wales. It proposes no amendment of section 52.

  My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales issued a consultation paper on 11 July (Official Report column 483) which invited
  780
  comments on separate proposals to amend section 52. In that context we shall consider any views on the need for changes to section 52 to facilitate the provision of low cost rural housing. Comments are invited by 11 September.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to publish figures showing the savings accruing to local authorities as a result of competitive tendering.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Department will shortly be issuing a questionnaire to authorities seeking information about the outcome of the first round of competition under the Local Government Act 1988, which starts on 1 August of this year. The results of this survey should be available early next year.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in persuading aerosol manufacturers to ban the inessential use of chlorofluorocarbons.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 24 May 1989 to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) at column 584.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the United Kingdom to meet the 50 per cent. reduction in chlorofluorocarbons use laid down in the Montreal protocol.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 18 May 1989 to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) at column 262.

  Litter
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) of 28 June,Official Report column 485, when he now expects to make an announcement on fixed penalties for littering.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State on 20 July 1989 to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) at columns 347–48.

  Building and Maintenance (Competition)
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from organisations on his proposals to change the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980, with respect to competition for building and maintenance work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) earlier today.

  Emergency Expenditure (Grant Penalty)
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning clause 125 of the Local Government and
  781
  Housing Bill and the question of grant penalty being applied in the event of emergency expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received a number of representations concerning what is now clause 142 of the Local Government and Housing Bill. One of the features of the new local government finance system is that there will be no link between an authority's spending and the amount of revenue support grant it receives. Expenditure on emergency work will not, therefore, result in any grant penalty.

  Vacant Properties
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council properties in the London borough of Wandsworth were empty on 10 July.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 24 July 1989 by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier).

  City Grant
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he takes to ensure that his discussions with developers and local authorities on city grant applications do not conflict with his position as the final authority on planning applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  City grant applications are not accepted for appraisal unless planning permission for the project has already been granted or is due to be considered shortly by the local planning authority. Projects are discussed and appraised only in relation to the criteria for City grant and, until there is a final determination of planning permission, I do not take a decision on the city grant application.

  Hostels
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has developed any proposals to meet the permanent housing needs of residents of hostels and special needs housing projects in England and Wales.

  Mr. Chope
  The increased resources made available by the Government for capital expenditure on housing will enable more subsidised permanent accommodation to be provided, which can be used for residents of hostels and shared housing where appropriate. In addition, the future arrangements for Government support for special needs housing by housing associations are under consideration in consultation with the Housing Corporation, the National Federation of Housing Associations and representatives of the hostels movement.

  Countryside Commission
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what meetings he has had recently with the chairman of the Countryside Commission; and what matters were discussed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have met the chairman of the Countryside Commission, Sir Derek Barber, along with ministerial colleagues, on several occasions this year to discuss issues related to the work of the commission and the development of policies for the countryside.

  Landfill
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to review the controls on landfill operations in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A thorough review of legislation relating to waste management is nearing completion. New legislation, which will include many measures to improve the control of landfills, will be introduced at the earliest opportunity.

  Association of District Councils
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Assocition of District Councils; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State met leaders of the Association of District Councils at the meeting of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on Wednesday 12 July. The consultative council discussed the terminology for the new system of local government finance; projections of local authorities' spending in 1990–91; proposals for new standard spending assessments; and arrangements for the future review of standard spending assessments.

  GREA (Barnsley)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the grant related needs assessment for Barnsley metropolitan district council; and whether he will provide extra resources to that authority.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My right hon. Friend the then Minister for Local Government met a delegation from Barnsley metropolitan borough council with the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) on 29 June. At that meeting, and in a letter subsequently received from the Leader of the council, Barnsley made representations on standard spending assessments, on the overall level of grant and on its own resources. Before taking any decisions on the grant settlement, we shall consider all respresentations made, including those by Barnsley.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his assessment of the long-term relative environmental friendliness of the main alternative means of electricity generation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No means of electricity generation are entirely free of environmental effects. Both nuclear power and renewable energy sources have a valuable contribution to make to the aim of limiting the emission of environmentally damaging gaseous pollutants and of greenhouse gases, which result from the burning of fossil fuels.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning appeals in the last 12 months for which figures are available have resulted in decisions which are contrary to local plans where these have been in place.
  783
  Mr. Chope
  I regret that this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Marine Nature Reserves
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last discussed the status and numbers of marine nature reserves; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) on 28 June 1989 at column 492. Officials of the Department are in regular contact with NCC on these matters.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has received from the Nature Conservancy Council as to the difficulties experienced in progressing marine nature reserve designations; if he has any plans to review(a) the existing consultation procedure or (b) section 36 and 37 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My Department is in close touch with the Nature Conservancy Council on all matters connected with the designation of marine nature reserves, including consultation procedures. There are no plans at present to revise sections 36 and 37 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Sports Council
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the Sports Council; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Sports Council; and what subjects he intends to discuss.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My last formal meeting with the chairman of the Sports Council was on 3 July when we discussed the council's corporate plan. We meet at regular intervals to discuss issues relating to sport.

  Data Protection
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many poll tax registration forms have been referred to the data protection registrar for alleged breaches of data protection principles.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I understand that the data protection registrar has requested all community charges registration officers to provide him with a copy of the form they are using to compile the community charges register.

  White Paper
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, for each of the last three White Papers issued by his Department, for which legislation has been started, he will state the time elapsed between their publication and the First Readings of any Bills connected with them; and if he will do the same for the last three White Papers issued by his Department prior to May 1979.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The last three White Papers published by my Department, in which legislation was 784
  proposed and has been subsequently started or completed, were "Privatisation of the Water Authorities in England and Wales", "Housing: The Government's Proposals" and "The Conduct of Local Authority Business—The Government Response to the Report of the Widdicombe Committee of Inquiry". These were published in February 1986, September 1987 and July 1988 respectively; and the First Readings of the Water Bill and Local Government and Housing Bill which resulted from them took place in the record of the last Government in this matter, but the information requested should be available in the Library of the House and the Official Report.

  River Quality
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of United Kingdom rivers are in class 1 of river water quality and what is the comparable percentage figure for the European Community as a whole.

  Mr. Howard
  The 1985 river quality surveys indicated that about 83 per cent. of river lengths in the United Kingdom were classified as being of class I (good) quality. Comprehensive information on a comparable basis for other EC member states is not available. However, a study published in 1988 by the water research centre, in reviewing classification schemes across member states, showed that on the basis of comparisons made using the United Kingdom river classification scheme, only 39 per cent. of rivers in the European Community as a whole were of good quality. Only one other member state—Ireland at 84 per cent.—had a greater proportion of "good" quality rivers. A summary of these results is published in the Water Authorities' Association publication "Water Facts 1988".

  97–107 Shaw Street, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the future of 97–107 Shaw street, Liverpool; and whether he will intervene to prevent the demolition of these properties.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is not aware of any representations following the then Secretary of State's decision on the Liverpool city council order. This decision was issued on 30 March 1989 and the city council has a five-year period within which it must take action.

  A total of five statutory and 102 non-statutory objections were received in response to the compulsory purchase order, all of which were considered by my right hon. Friend before he issued his decision.

  Civil Service (Relocation)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made in his Department's review, in line with Treasury guidelines, of the potential for the further relocation of Civil Service posts outside London and the south east; and when he expects the review to be completed.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Around 38 per cent. of the Department of the Environment's staff of approximately 6,000 (excluding the Property Services Agency) are already
  785
  located outside London, 24 per cent. outside the south east. All other posts have been assessed for relocation potential, and some 1,350 posts have been identified for detailed investigation. Studies covering 320 posts are complete, leading to proposals to move some 90 out of London, which are now being implemented. Studies covering the other posts will be carried out over the next two years or so, as operational requirements allow.

  Seventy per cent. of the PSA's staff of 22,800 (including the Crown Suppliers) are already located outside London, 45 per cent. outside the south east. The agency is being restructured to become a more commercial organisation, and the scope for further relocation is being examined through the business planning process.

  Aggregates (Demand)
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the demand for aggregates.

  Mr. Chope
  When I announced the publication of MPG6 in March, I said that its purpose was to ensure that the construction industry continues to receive an adequate and steady supply of minerals at the best balance of social, environmental and economic costs; and that there was a need to apply the national and regional guidelines at the mineral planning authority level and that the Government believed that this should be treated as a priority task by the mineral planning authorities and the regional aggregates working parties.

  I have now been advised by the national co-ordinating group that the recent and current level of demand for construction aggregates is running at a level substantially higher than that envisaged when MPG6 was prepared. I am also advised that in some parts of the country, the guidelines contained in MPG6 have not yet been fully implemented.

  In these circumstances, the Government believe that it is very important that both industry and mineral planning authorities take positive steps to respond to the present situation. In particular both should ensure that the guidance given in MPG6 is implemented as a matter of priority. The following three points are of particular importance.

  First, for aggregate minerals the aim should be to provide for the release of land to maintain a stock of permissions (a landbank) for an appropriate local area, sufficient for at least 10 years extraction unless exceptional circumstances prevail. This is not the case in many areas and industry and mineral planning authorities should consider urgently what steps should be taken to make further provision.

  Secondly, the guidelines suggested how provision could be made for the period up to 2005. At present rates of consumption it will be needed over a shorter period than that. Authorities should recognise that to maintain landbanks in accordance with MPG6 and to ensure that future demand can be met, this provision may well need to be brought forward and made available at an earlier point in the period.

  Thridly, when preparing and altering development plans, mineral planning authorities should have regard to the current situation, and policies should be formulated with an appropriate degree of flexibility.

  The Department is making provision for an up-to-date survey of aggregates—AM89. It is important that this
  786
  should be completed by the end of 1990. At that time we shall also be in a position to take account of such important factors as the results of our current research projects into alternative sources of supply and the planning considerations which affect minerals extraction. In the light of changing circumstances work on a revised forecast will begin soon in order that the results can be taken into account for the next edition of the guidelines.

  Finally I would like to reiterate that the Secretaries of State attach importance to the speedy and effective implementation of the policies and guidelines contained in MPG6. These aim to ensure that the needs of society for minerals are satisfied with due regard to the protection of the environment. They look to mineral planning authorities and the industry to achieve this and they will have regard to this statement in considering development plans, planning applications and appeals.

  I am drawing this statement to the attention of all mineral planning authorities and to the planning inspectorate and I am asking that national co-ordinating group to monitor the situation and provide a progress report in six months' time.

  Landfill Sites (Harmful Gases)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to issue further policy guidance about planning powers in relation to landfill sites which may be generating harmful gases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales have today published a circular "Landfill Sites: Development Control" (Doe circular 17/89, Welsh Office circular 38/89). Copies of which will be placed in the Library.

  The circular, which takes account of comments on a draft issued last December, gives further advice to local authorities about the use of their planning powers in relation to landfill sites in England and Wales which may be generating harmful gases.

  Polymer Modified Bitumens
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those city councils who specify polymer modified bitumens.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies he has made of the environmental improvement to the atmosphere that would be achieved if county council surveyors specified polymer modified bitumens.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Warren Spring laboratory, on behalf of the Department, is assessing the emissions of volatile organic compounds to atmosphere and the options for their control. Work on unmodified, thermal and blown bitumens is not yet complete.

  Water Authorities (Advertising)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the cost of the Yorkshire water board's advertising annually from 1979 to 1989;
  787
  (2) what is the cost of the water authorities advertising in the current financial year both in total throughout the country and by region.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  These are questions for the individual water authorities concerned.

  Noisy Parties
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he plans to take any steps to strengthen the powers of the police to deal with complaints about noisy late night parties.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The police have no powers to act against noise nuisance from premises. The Control of Pollution Act 1974 provides local authorities with adequate powers to control such nuisance.

  Shellfish Farms
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how shellfish structures or associated shore-based developments are classified under the planning system; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what powers he has to control the siting of shellfish farms and associated shore-based structures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The breeding and keeping of livestock (which can include fish and shellfish) for the production of food falls within the definition of "agriculture" in section 290(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Class A of part 6 of schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 grants permitted development rights for the carrying out on agricultural land of building works or any excavation or engineering operations reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture, subject to a range of conditions. In national parks and some adjacent areas the exercise of some of these rights is subject to approval by the local planning authority.

  Class C of part 6 grants additional permitted development rights to carry out operations to construct fishponds or other engineering operations on agricultural land for the purposes of a fish or shellfish farming business registered under the Diseases of Fish Act 1983, again subject to a range of conditions. Any fish or shellfish farming development that does not satisfy the conditions of part 6 requires specific planning permisson. The Department's consultation paper on possible new permitted development rights in the countryside, issued on 8 May, invited views on whether it would be desirable to curtail permitted development rights for fish farming in national parks. Responses to this consultation paper are now being considered.

  Shooting Rights
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) instructions, (b) advice or (c) requests he has given to the Nature Conservancy Council, or other bodies, concerning the prohibition of or making agreements regarding shooting rights in environmentally sensitive areas together with the relevant dates; what advice he sought or received from bodies with relevant interests; and if he will make a statement.
  788
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There is agreement between the Department and the NCC that traditional country rights and uses of land should be interfered with only where they are in conflict with conservation interests.

  Liverpool City Council (Employees)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the number of black people employed by the Liverpool city council,(a) at the latest date and (b) in 1980.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is not separately distinguishable in statistics held centrally.

  Information
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the assembly and dissemination of environmental information.

  Mr. Patten
  I am concerned at the tendency for factual environmental information to he treated as political statements. I am therefore exploring ways of ensuring that objective assessments of environmental issues are taken out of political dispute.

  Environmental Risk (Advice)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will establish an independent and authoritative national agency for monitoring and advising on environmental risk and regulatory performance.

  Mr. Patten
  Effective pollution control is best promoted through organisations tailor-made to regulate specific issues such as the National Rivers Authority, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and local pollution control agencies. There is no need for a new national agency.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government are going to respond to the fourth report of the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee on hazardous waste disposal.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are today publishing a full response to the Committee's report. We are pleased to note that there are many points on which the Committee support the Government's present policies and proposals for legislative change. In particular both the Government and the Committee have expressed concern over the waste disposal control framework, delays by local authorities in completing waste disposal plans, landfill gas management and the control of imports. These are all matters on which we have already made progress.

  We could not accept the Committee's recommendations on certain issues such as the registration of hazardous waste producers and statutory regional groupings of waste disposal authorities. Our response has included the reasons.

  We welcome the opportunity the Committee's fourth report has provided for discussing the important issues. The Government have made advance towards solving the problems and improving the system of control since the Committee last reported in 1981.

  Rate Support Grant (Calderdale)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the total rates in Calderdale was represented by the rate support grant in each year from 1979 to 1988.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 10 April 1989]: The percentage of Calderdale's expenditure, as defined for the purposes of calculating grant, which is represented by rate support grant in each year from 1981 to 1988 is as follows:

  Per cent.

  1981–82

  71

  1982–83

  65

  1983–84

  68

  1984–85

  67

  1985–86

  67

  1986–87

  56

  1987–88

  59

  1988–89

  56

  It is not possible to provide information for 1979–80 and 1980–81 in the form requested, as the rate support grant system used prior to 1981–82 did not separately identify grant paid in respect of districts and counties.

  Recycling
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to encourage the recycling of(a) used batteries, (b) household chemical wastes and (c) cloth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: The Government encourage recycling whenever it makes economic and environmental sense.

  Many batteries are already recycled. For example, some 80 per cent. of all lead acid automotive batteries are fully reclaimed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be considering how to respond to the proposed European Community directive on batteries.

  Advice on the disposal of awkward household wastes was published in 1974 by HMSO. This includes guidance on chemical waste reclamation.

  The recycling of textiles is a matter in the first instance for industry, which will encourage the recovery of all textiles for which there is a viable market.

  Bottle Banks
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the ratio of bottle banks to head of population for all the European countries for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 6 February 1989 to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) at col. 518.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months compared with the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the 790
  performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: My Department contributes to the Government policy of creating a climate in which small businesses can flourish, in particular by simplifying and removing unnecessary controls on them. The major deregulation initiatives carried through and in progress are set out in the White Paper "Releasing Enterprise" (Cm. 512). They include substantial changes to the planning system, the development of integrated pollution control, and the reform of the building regulations, all of which simplify procedures and remove unnecessary burdens on businesses of all sizes. Separate information on small businesses is not available.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to use those statutory powers available to him to prosecute water authorities which do not comply with EEC directives.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: Where my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has enforcement powers relevant to implementation of EC directives, he will consider using them in appropriate circumstances.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will bring up to date the figures given in his written reply dated 16 December 1936,Official Report column 438, concerning the specified rate of return on net assets for each water authority, together with a forecast for 1990–91; and if he will include figures showing (i) the net assets in 1987–88 in each case, (ii) the realised profit in 1987–88 in percentage and cash terms, (iii) the corresponding forecast for the current financial year, (iv) the target rate of return after privatisation and (v) the estimated effect the target rate would have on the cash margin in the current financial year.

  Mr. Howard
  The water authorities' performance against their specified return on assets is set out in their published annual accounts for 1987–88, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Copies of their unaudited accounts for 1988–89 were placed in the Library of the House on 6 July. Copies of their final reports and accounts, which will contain a statement of their performance against the specified return on assets will be laid before Parliament in August.

  No target rates of return have been set for 1989–90 or for subsequent years.

  Anti-abortion Rally, Westminster
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the use of Abingdon street gardens, Westminster, for an anti-abortion gathering, for the purposes of filming and sound recording, on 27 and 28 June, was authorised under the appropriate byelaws: and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 July 1989] The Department's press office facilities officer granted written permission to the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children for a photocall with Members of

  791
  Parliament, at Abingdon street gardens, Westminster, on 27 and 28 June under the Royal and Other Parks and Gardens Regulations 1977, section 4, paragraph (7) and (16).
  792
  The permit generally covered filming, photography and sound recording.

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

Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke
Sir Eric Sharp, Knight, CBE, having been created Baron Sharp of Grimsdyke, of Stanmore in the London Borough of Harrow, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Young of Graffham and the Lord Joseph.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
Ian McColl, Esquire, having been created Baron McColl of Dulwich, of Bermondsey in the London Borough of Southwark, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) and the Lord Holderness.

Civil Aviation Policy
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of growing disquiet and anxiety about aviation policy, and conflicting views expressed by the Civil Aviation Authority, British Airports Authority plc and the airlines, they will make a general statement on these matters before Parliament rises for the Summer Recess, with particular reference to future runway capacity and the time-scale envisaged for consideration.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Civil Aviation Authority's wide consultations on its current airport capacity and air space studies have given rise to a vigorous debate and it is natural that parties involved should have differing views. We last week received, and are now considering, the first part of the authority's advice on air traffic distribution policy for airports serving the London area. We will announce our conclusions in due course, but that will not be possible before the House rises.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I realise that the Minister has just been handed that Answer, and it is not his fault that it is entirely unsatisfactory. If I might come to the last part of my Question to which the Minister did not even attempt to reply, may I ask him if he knows that Mr. Christopher Tugendhat, when presenting his report, said that additional terminal facilities must be provided at Heathrow and Stansted immediately and a new runway before the year 2000? Is he further aware that Mr. Tugendhat said that if those new terminals were not provided quickly the new runway would be necessary before the year 2000?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am aware of that, because I believe that the noble Baroness asked that question of my noble friend on Monday. He answered it then. I shall have to give the same answer.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, this is a difficult matter to deal with by question and answer. Are the differences between the BAA and the CAA as much in conflict as has been suggested? I have read all the documents. It appears that the BAA says that there should be additional runway space, but that priority should be given to providing adequate air space, whereas, while the CAA wants additional runway space in the South-East, it believes that it must take into consideration the position of regional airports. It recognises that air space is finite and therefore believes that there should be an in-depth inquiry into that matter. The most important thing, surely, is to await the CAA review.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I have done my best!
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have rather forgotten the question. I said in my original Answer that it is entirely natural that the parties involved should have differing views. We always recognised that we had given the CAA a difficult task to undertake. The authority has taken the view that before offering advice on long-term strategic issues it should carry out some further technical work. I can assure the noble Lord that at present the management of air space—not runways—is the main cause of congestion in the United Kingdom. Additional runways will not help to relieve air space congestion.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he has the slight impression that the needle on this record has become somewhat stuck in the groove?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have a feeling that that is what the noble Baroness thinks.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he was incorrect in his reply? If he looks at the reply given to me on Monday I think he will find that I did not mention what Mr. Tugendhat said. May I ask him whether he is aware that Mr. Tugendhat has said that a new runway must be in use by the year 2000 and that if the additional terminal facilities are not provided quickly at Heathrow and Stansted the new runway will be needed before then? Will the Minister take that on board and consider the last part of my Question?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly take it on board. I apologise to the noble Baroness if I misled the House. However I was in the Chamber on Monday and I am sure that I heard Mr. Tugendhat being brought up.
Lord Marley: My Lords, if such a statement is to be made, will consideration be given to equal pay between the employees at Gatwick and at Heathrow?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is a very interesting question but I do not think that it has much to do with the one on the Order Paper.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can we be assured that in relation to the provision of additional facilities and additional runway capacity in the South-East, the environment of the people living around airports and under flight paths will be given equal consideration with the interests of people flying above them?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sure that that will be the case.

The Peto Institute for Handicapped Children
3.1 p.m.
Lord Auckland Lord Auckland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What recent communication they have had with the Peto Institute for handicapped children in Hungary and what results have ensued.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security and the Disabled visited the Peto Institute in September last year and my honourable friend the Minister of Education and Health at the Scottish Office also visited the institute in February this year. The Hungarian Government propose to develop an international centre at the Peto Institute in order to meet increasing overseas demand and to spread the philosophy of conductive education internationally. In December last year they put forward formal proposals for United Kingdom collaboration in the international centre. Discussions on these proposals are continuing.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I thank my noble friend and kinsman for that very helpful Answer. I am sure that the whole House would wish to congratulate him on his ministerial elevation. Is he aware of the very moving television programme shown about six months ago on this splendid place? Arising from that, can he say what consultations there have been as a result of the ministerial visits to Budapest? Have there been reciprocal visits from Hungarian ministers and paediatricians? Will encouragement be given to paediatricians from this country to visit Hungary, and vice versa?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble kinsman for those remarks. We hope to bring negotiations about a United Kingdom contribution to the international institute to a satisfactory conclusion in the near future. There is plenty of good will on both sides but we have only just, in the past week or so, received further information from the Hungarian Government which we shall need time to study. As regards encouraging paediatricians to visit the Hungarian institute, that is a matter for them. However, we are conducting an evaluation of what is going on at the Peto Institute through the Birmingham Foundation for Conductive Education.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister consider the posssibility that not only the professional people involved with handicapped children should pay a visit to Hungary, but some of the very hard-working representatives of the voluntary organisations who do so much for the handicapped of this country should also be allowed to be involved?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think I should also say that, as my noble kinsman mentioned, there was a television programme some months ago which I did not see. I gather that there was also a radio programme this morning. Again, I am afraid that I was unable to listen to it because I was rather busy being briefed on this Question and other matters. Increasing numbers of people, whether professionals or those involved in the voluntary sector, are aware of what goes on. I hope that they will visit the Peto Institute and discover what it is doing.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I associate myself and my noble friends with the congratulations to the noble Lord on his appointment? It is good to find that last night, having thanked him for all that he had done for health, I now find him still speaking for health today, even though on behalf of another department.
In connection with the Question, is he aware that the hopes of many hundreds of families are very much pinned on the Peto Institute? They will wish to have the statement and assurance which have been promised by the Minister. Can he say roughly when he expects to be able to make a statement and indicate whether there are things which we in Britain can learn from what has been done at the institute?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. I should say that I am not speaking here on health matters, which is something for my new department, the Department of Social Security. If the noble Lord has listened to me, he will remember that in my first Answer I said, "The Minister of State for Social Security and the Disabled", which comes under the Department of Social Security.
We accept that conductive education needs to be evaluated, and I explained this to my noble kinsman Lord Auckland. We shall not receive the results of that evaluation until 1992. Nevertheless, once we have sorted out various other matters we hope to be able to go ahead with some collaboration with the Peto Institute before 1992.

Shakespeare and the Globe and Rose Theatres
3.6 p.m.
Lord Sudeley Lord Sudeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to designate the area where Shakespeare lived, including the Rose and Globe Theatre sites, as an area of international importance in honour of the national poet.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My

1433
Lords, the Government have no powers to make such a designation.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very disappointing reply. Is he aware that two leading Shakespeare scholars, Professor Andrew Gurr of Reading University and Professor Honigmann of Newcastle, have confirmed the strong presumptive evidence that Shakespeare lived on or near the site of the Globe Theatre? Therefore, with the current excavations at the Globe and the Rose Theatre sites, does he not think that the designation of the area would be very much to the advantage of the international tourist trade?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I suspect that my noble friend is referring to the possibility of a world heritage site designation. Perhaps I may just give an example. The 14 sites which already exist in this country are ones such as Durham Cathedral, Fountains Abbey, Canterbury Cathedral and Blenheim Palace. It is fair to say that what exists on the site at present would not fit the same criteria as the examples I have just given.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us believe that Shakespeare probably moved all over the place while he worked at this site? In any case, the importance of the whole area of my beloved Bermondsey with which I used to be associated should be given international recognition.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the birthplace of the noble Lord would in its own right be a source of great pride to the people of Bermondsey. He is entirely correct to point out that Shakespeare certainly travelled. I am sure that the citizens of Stratford-upon-Avon feel that there is already considerable recognition of the great Bard in Warwick.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in 16th century London that area was better known for its brothels than its theatres?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his ability yet again to provide me with an extension to my limited knowledge of 16th century London.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, this on-going development is assuming Shakespearian proportions in itself. Can the Minister be good enough to say what the present position is? The House would wish to know precisely what the planning implications are. For example, I have read that Southwark Council, which is directly involved, has criticised the noble Lord's department because the council has received no guidance whatsoever from it. Would it not be a good idea for the noble Lord's department and Southwark Council to get together to discuss the matter so that the man in the street may have some view about it.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there was a development last night, which was that, subject to the completion of a legal agreement, the London Borough of
1434
Southwark has now approved planning permission for the developers' revised proposals which will allow the known theatre remains to stay on public display. We believe that this is a good solution to a difficult problem. Furthermore, I wish to congratulate all those who have worked together to achieve this solution through voluntary means.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when my noble kinsman and I visited the site of the Rose Theatre yesterday morning the air was thick with dust, the site was covered with rubble and the noise of bulldozers and pile drivers was absolutely hideous? I could not help thinking of the last recorded magical words of Lord Olivier, who said, "Cry God for England, Harry and the Rose".
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have received assurances from the developers. Further to that, with regard to last night, the details of which are of course a matter for Southwark, I understand that the conditions will relate to the approval of some of the elevation of details and the protection of the archaeological remain- during the period of construction.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is it not a fact that, apart from cultural considerations, American tourists have shown enormous interest in the Rose Theatre and are likely to show a similar interest in the Globe Theatre when it is excavated? Will the Minister say whether these considerations and the economic aspects of the tourist interest will influence his department in any future decisions?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with regard to the Globe Theatre, the Museum of London is now carrying out an evaluation of the site where the Globe is believed to have been. However, the result of last night's developments is that it appears that there has been a satisfactory outcome for the preservation and for the public display of the remains that have already been proven and discovered.

Export Intelligence Service
3.12 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the newly privatised Export Intelligence Service has not adversely affected industrial exporters.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, export intelligence continues to be a service provided to exporters by my department. However, in order to enhance the delivery, presentation and marketing of the information, a contract has been placed with a private sector company to carry out these functions on our behalf.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. I am sure every Member of this House would wish to join me

1435
in congratulating him on his new appointment. Is he in a position to tell the House how the very considerable increase in costs in the EIS can be justified, particularly in terms of the quality of service to trade associations, chambers of commerce and individual customers?
Lord Tregarne: My Lords, there is a limit to the extent to which the taxpayer can be asked to subsidise these matters. Furthermore, the old system was very inefficient. It relied heavily upon the post to deliver this information in a timely way. I am afraid it did not always achieve that result. As the new arrangements use, in addition to the post, electronic methods of delivery, they will be much more tailored to the needs of exporters. I am certain they will provide exporters with better value for money, even having regard to the extra costs involved.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, may I associate these Benches with the congratulations offered by the noble Viscount on the noble Lord's appointment as Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry? Is he aware that he is the third DTI Minister I have had the honour of addressing from this Dispatch Box? They seem somehow to vanish like snow in the spring sunshine. I wish the noble Lord a happy and prolonged tenure of office, at least for as long as the Government are in power. On the substance of the Question of the noble Viscount, will the noble Lord tell us whether he sees any connection between the privatisation of the Export Intelligence Service and the fact that our exports in volume terms, as announced today by his department, have remained flat over the past year?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks, as I thank my noble friend also. As I said in the original Answer, we are not privatising the service but are just placing into commercial hands the delivery of the information. Collection of the information will remain in the hands, primarily, of the Foreign Office. Collation occurs in the Department of Trade and Industry. The service has only been going in its new form since the beginning of June. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that it is a little early to draw conclusions about its success.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the majority of representatives of industry would welcome this move in so far as it delivers this service from the contraints of having to be evenhanded with regard to the information? It could evaluate on the merits of a case which company has the best approach in order to export goods for the benefit of the country as a whole.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am quite certain that my noble friend is right. The original service did not fully meet the needs of exporters. The Gazette, which was published on a daily basis, had reduced in circulation to less than 200. I cannot think that that was what exporters needed.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, in view of the need for continued assurance to industrial exporters who are mentioned in the Question, will the Minister assure us that in response to the Kemp Report, there will be an early reply on the continuity of export credit facilities, which are part of the services offered?.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that that is a different question. However, if I may transgress the procedures of the House, I should say that I am aware of the matter the noble Lord has referred to. We shall certainly be replying to that matter as soon as we can.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what was wrong with the system as it was in my day? If I wanted to go abroad on business, I got a letter of introduction from the Board of Trade, as it then was, to our commercial counsellor at the embassy where I was going—there were no administration costs—who laid everything on for me.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think this is a slightly different service to the one the noble Earl used to take advantage of. This service provides information to potential exporters about commercial opportunities in the countries concerned. This information now has to be delivered on a very timely and effective basis if exporters are to have a chance to take advantage of it.
Lord Peston: My Lords, without wishing to throw any cold water on all of this, will the noble Lord tell us whether his department has undertaken any studies of the effectiveness of this service, and in particular in relation to the Question of the noble Viscount, whether the department is proposing to monitor the service in its new form to see whether it does any good at all?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sure the service does a great deal of good, particularly if the information is delivered effectively and in a timely fashion. The performance of our exporters generally has been very good in recent years. We are, of course, competing in a world where everyone else is trying very hard as well, and we shall have to ensure that we do even better. That is now one of my responsibilities.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister said he was sure the service did a great deal of good. My noble friend asked him how he was sure the service was effective. Has there been any research on this subject?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the proof of this pudding is in the eating. I have just been appointed the Minister responsible for these matters. I apologise for the fact that I have only been in office 24 hours, and I shall try and do better at once.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the quality of the service depends

1437
on the accuracy of the information received from government posts overseas? It is of little help to receive an inquiry for a wheelbarrow when one happens to be making 40 tonne forklift trucks. Can an improvement be made in the initial quality of the information coming from overseas posts and can that be assured under the new system?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is intended to make some changes to the collation of information. At the moment that is done entirely by means of code matching—that is, matching the requirement to the Customs designation of the product concerned. Now we tend to add key word searching, as it is known in the vernacular, to the system to produce this information. I hope that that will further add to its benefit.

Nottingham Park Estate Bill [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed and sent to the Commons.

Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Medway Tunnel Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Local Government and Housing Bill
3.21 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 67: [Requirements for companies under control or subject to influence of local authorities]:
Lord Hayter Lord Hayter moved Amendment No. 131B:
Page 74, line 42, at beginning insert—
("(1A) No power exercisable under this section shall be taken to confer any power to make an order in relation to an independent voluntary organisation company within the meaning of subsection (1C) below.
(1B) A voluntary organisation company is a company which is also a voluntary organisation within the meaning of section 137(2D) of the Local Government Act 1972.
1438
(1C) An independent voluntary organisation company is a voluntary organisation company within the meaning of subsection (1A) above, which either—

(a) receives no financial assistance for a local authority whether by way of grant, loan, interest in land or otherwise; or

(b) receives such assistance, but that assistance is not given by the local authority with the intention of avoiding any restriction or control placed upon it try Part V of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, for once in a while the amendment that is in front of the Committee means what it says. So often amendments are put forward which are quite inexplicable, but that is not so in this case. My duty is to explain why it is put down in this precise wording and the reason for the anxiety about the whole question.
In recent years I have often found myself defending the interests of the voluntary organisations. The pattern is becoming depressingly familiar. Legislation is put forward to deal with some aspect of local authorities and instead of simply addressing itself to that point it is so widely drafted that it catches a whole range of other activities, including the valuable work of voluntary organisations. The latest example is this part of the Bill. I do not believe that that was the Government's intention; it has just happened that way.
The Committee may well wonder what Part V of the Bill, which deals with local government, has to do with voluntary organisations. The fact is that potentially thousands of voluntary organisations could be affected because many of them are constituted as companies, usually by guarantee, or as industrial societies. There are many such companies. My concern is that those companies could be caught by this Bill if, first a fifth or more of the voting members of the company or its board of directors are associated with the local authority or, I have to add, their spouses—which sounds ridiculous but it is true—or, secondly, if half or more of its business is with the local authority. In those circumstances they fall into the category of local authority influenced companies if the local authority controls more than half of the votes at a general meeting. If a voluntary organisation falls into either of those categories it becomes subject to nearly all of the controls of the local authority itself.
Part V of the Bill implies that if a voluntary organisation works in close partnership with the local authority it should be treated as if it were a part of the local authority. There is no place in the Bill for the concept of independent partners, each working together but each retaining its own identity. Part V says that if they work closely together they have to be treated as if they were one and the same. I think that that is wrong.
Part V not only challenges that concept of the independent voluntary sector, it also introduces an immensely complicated set of rules and regulations. Those rules will be bureaucratic, intrusive and authoritarian and will seriously hamper the work of voluntary organisations. All that is designed to address a problem which somebody thinks might occur in the future. As far as I know no evidence has been produced to show that it has ever occurred. The Government propose to establish this elaborate

1439
set-up to prevent a potential abuse. I take a different approach. Why not address the potential abuse directly and leave everyone else to continue their valuable work unaffected by yet more regulations and controls?
If the voluntary organisations are caught by Part V of the Bill, what difference will it make to them? The first difference, and perhaps the most major, is that Part V introduces a system for controlling local authority controlled companies. The details will be contained in regulations. If Members of the Committee turn to the beginning of Clause 67 they will see that the Bill says:
"In relation to companies under the control of local authorities and companies subject to the influence of local authorities, the Secretary of State may by order make provision regulating, forbidding or requiring the taking of certain action or courses of action".
One cannot get much more dictatorial than that, I venture to suggest.
Who knows what further controls might be introduced? Once the framework has been established and the independence of the voluntary organisations compromised, the extraordinarily wide powers that I have just read out could be used for any number of purposes. This is clearly the thin end of a very wide wedge.
Perhaps I may emphasise some of the difficulties of the voluntary organisations in connection with this clause. They would have to introduce complex bureaucratic systems in order to implement it. It is easy enough for a local authority to establish whether a voluntary organisation is a company, but it will be very difficult to determine whether more than 20 per cent. of the members of its management committee are "associated" with the local authority. Council officers will have to require that a voluntary organisation tells them who is on its management committee, who they are married to, who they are employed by and whether they hold office in a local political party. Furthermore, the council officers will have to keep that information up to date. They will have to inform the local authority every time a management committee changes, or a member gets married, changes employment or is elected to office in a political party. Many local authorities found that over 100 voluntary organisations would be involved. Imagine the questionnaires, the form filling, the records and the sheer bureaucracy which that will involve.
Another difficulty is that a voluntary organisation would have to obtain approval from its local authority before taking on a mortgage for premises or a loan for equipment or a vehicle regardless of whether the borrowing was being financed by the local authority or from an independent source. People disqualified from council membership, for example, because they live outside the local authority area, could not sit on the management committee. It is all beginning to be a little ridiculous.
Part V is a complex and confusing piece of legislation. There is already widespread uncertainty within the voluntary organisations about the implications. Some have decided that the best tactic is to escape the legislation altogether by not
1440
incorporating themselves or by not having people associated with the local authority. That, I am happy to agree, is not the purpose of the legislation. It would be most unfortunate if one of its main effects were to leave a management committee unprotected or to reduce the level of work carried out jointly by the local authority and the voluntary sector. It would be equally unfortunate if the voluntary organisations were to spend a great deal of money and effort drawing up new constitutions in order to escape controls which should never be there in the first place.
Also, people will be discouraged from serving on management committees. They would naturally object to all the questions that they would have to answer. Some voluntary organisations are finding it hard enough to get people to join them at the moment. Asking them those personal and intrusive questions would inevitably add to their difficulties. On the other hand, the local authorities may decide to withdraw grants altogether if the voluntary organisations decide not to have people associated with the local authority. Thus, Part V could unwittingly result in cuts in voluntary sector funding.
Undoubtedly the greatest concern among voluntary organisations is that the logic underlying the Bill questions the whole concept of an independent voluntary sector. It is assumed that a voluntary organisation which receives more than a certain amount of funding and has more than a certain number of people associated with the local authority on its management committee becomes, in a sense, part of the local authority. That denies the whole notion of two independent partners working together as equals.
It is true that there are exemptions. The Government have already undertaken to exempt citizens' advice bureaux and the Groundwork Trusts from the proposals. In both cases, they accept that the independence of those organisations can be guaranteed by their constitutions, their membership of a national network and their close links with government. However, there will be many other local voluntary organisations which are not members of national networks and yet are also completely independent of the local authority. Why should they, and not other parts of the voluntary sector, be potentially subject to that legislation? It would be most unhealthy to have two classes of voluntary organisation in that way.
I should emphasise that the amendment is not some invention of my own. It has been worked out carefully by voluntary organsiations which feel that they can speak for the other numbers in their sphere, and in particular the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. A far better approach, and one that has the twin virtues of fairness and simplicity, would be to amend Part V to exempt all bona fide independent voluntary organisations. The controls would then apply only to those that are established with the intention of avoiding any restriction or controls on capital borrowing. I do not deny for a moment that the Government are right to do that and to try to clobber voluntary organisations established with the intention of avoiding any restriction.
My amendment would exempt all voluntary organisations unless the local authority was using it for that purpose. The amendment may well not be perfect. I am sure that, if they come to accept the main trust of our argument, the Government might want to redraft it to their own liking. But I am sure that that basic concept is sound. I have emphasised all the difficulties that we had in our minds and the fact that the voluntary organisations are desperately anxious. I have tried to transmit that anxiety to the Committee.
Finally, perhaps I may say that my amendment has another great virtue with a long and honourable tradition in our legal system. It assumes that a voluntary organisation is innocent until it is proved guilty. The thousands of voluntary organisations working up and down the country for the good of the community deseve nothing less. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: I should like to support the amendment strongly. No doubt noble Lords will recollect that the Government White Paper entitled, Charities: a Framework for the Future stated:
"What the voluntary sector has essentially to offer is the practical grass roots experience, its ability to respond swiftly and flexibly to changing needs and circumstances and above all its capacity to innovate".
That statement made by the Government is as good a definition of the role of the voluntary sector that one could find. It represents a policy that must be protected at all costs.
In these debates it is sometimes useful to refer to a specific case which I shall do now, if the Committee will allow me. Since 1949, I have been concerned with a charity called Family Service Units. In the provisions of the Bill, that charity would undoubtedly be a local authority influenced body. Practically all its units are in various inner cities around the country. The local authority probably has 20 per cent. of the board and certainly finances it. As the Committee will no doubt know, the FSU provides a highly skilled service for rescuing multi-problem families whom the local authority may well have abandoned as hopeless. It is valued so greatly that, in many cases, the local authority pays the salary bill. One local authority that I used to know paid the entire costs of the unit.
Generally speaking, the FSU will be affected by the Bill as it now stands because it will be constrained on its committee membership and because it does not believe in mass advertising to provide funds, mainly for reasons of confidentiality. If such a clause were extended to the area in which Family Service Units belong, FSU might come under the direct rule of the Secretary of State.
Family Service Units cannot conceivably be considered to exist to enable local government to bypass financial regulations. The essence of voluntary bodies is the right and, I might add, the obligation to innovate—as the White Paper said—but also to experiment and, in some cases, to make mistakes. Those essential ingredients would be destroyed or seriously diminished if the voluntary body is compelled to look over its shoulder at the daunting shadow of the Secretary of State. This
1442
is centralisation gone mad. This amendment, or a similar one, must be introduced into the Bill.
Lord Hylton: I have been associated with voluntary bodies in one form or another since about 1962. I have occupied most kinds of roles from that of volunteer to that of president in such fields as housing, adult education, mental handicap and prisoners. I therefore strongly support the amendment.
As it stands, the Bill will discriminate between those voluntary bodies that are constituted as trusts and those that happen to have arranged their affairs as companies. That seems to draw an arbitrary and unnecessary distinction. The Bill also appears to give excessive powers to the Secretary of State who will be able to intrude into the relationship of confidence that has been built up between many local authorities and many voluntary bodies.
We should bear in mind that, on the financial side of their affairs, local authorities are already subject to the scrutiny of the district auditor who is expected to bring to light any financial improprieties. I strongly suggest that the amendment provides a much better way out of those dilemmas than a policy of exemption of voluntary bodies case by case which, as I understand it, is the only proposal that the Government have so far been able to make.
Lady Kinloss: I should like to support the amendment. The controls will, I understand, hit hardest those organisations with high needs for capital expenditure, in particular, community transport and Dial-a-Ride (in some areas known as Ring-and-Ride). Those projects, among others, need loans for vehicles and for capitalised repair and maintenance contracts. Those are vital services for many elderly and disabled people and could be hard hit by the provisions of the Bill.
I also understand that the Government are concerned at the prospect of the voluntary sector being used as a front by local authorities. Have they any evidence that local authorities have engaged in such practices to evade control so far?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I very much hope that the Minister has listened with care, as he always does, to what is not only a reasonable but, in our view, an overwhelming case for the Government to think again. I hope that the Government do not believe that, when they put pen to paper and produce a Bill in the first instance, it cannot be improved. I also hope that they will be one of those governments who recognise that some people outside the House are closer to a problem than they are. Those people see the impact upon their own activities of what the Government intend to do more clearly than do the Government.
I am very pleased to say that so far in the debate we have not entered into a discussion on1he activities of councils. The debate is centred on the activity of what are known as "independent voluntary organisations". These are bodies which are intensely proud of their fiercely won independence. They exercise care and vigilance in their negotiations. They are very well aware that in this day and age

1443
they must be very careful about the company they keep and the inferences that may be drawn from what they say and do.
They are comprised of good men and women throughout the land who give up many hours of their time in order to look after, in the main, their fellow human beings who in one way or another are in desperate need of some assistance. That is the voluntary sector.
Quietly but I hope compellingly, I make an appeal to the Minister. The case has been made by speakers from all round the House to the effect that the Government's legislation, if misinterpreted, could—I do not say will—lead to damage to a very vulnerable sector of our society. The Minister does not have to tell me that that would not be the Government's intention but it may be the effect of their legislation.
This amendment will leave the Government with the rest of their legislation unimpaired. We ask them to take very careful note of it. It seeks to make sure that those organisations of the category listed in this amendment will not be considered as influenced companies.
Clause 67 already gives the Government the power in relation to companies of:
"regulating, forbidding or requiring the taking of certain actions or courses of action".
It already prescribes requirements on local authorities in relation to:
"leases, licences, contracts, gifts, grants or loans".
It makes provisions requiring the company or local authority to obtain the Secretary of State's consent before taking any action or course of action. In effect, the Secretary of State may do anything that he wishes, from interfering in financial matters to preventing recruitment in relation to voluntary organisations. That is surely an unreasonably draconian power.
This Government are proud of their legislation and their intentions to tackle the big problems. I therefore cannot believe that those who draft Bills and take guidance from Ministers have been urged to go into such detail as we find in this Bill in respect of this kind of organisation. Many other organisations are involved also.
If this amendment or something like it is not acceptable to the Government—and I was grateful to hear that it is recognised as not being comparable with the Ark of the Covenant—I ask them nonetheless to bear in mind the sense inherent in it. If the amendment is withdrawn perhaps one will consider coming back with something more acceptable. As it stands, the Bill is punitive and will hit the wrong target. I honestly do not believe that the Government intend to strike at the kind of organisation that we are trying to isolate and exclude in this amendment.
Quite frankly, we believe that there will be too much bureaucracy, time and money involved in this. Above all else there will be the sickening realisation by thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people, many of them politically strong supporters
1444
of the Government, that if this is what local government has come down to, they want no more of it. It is not just local government with which we are concerned. It is the voluntary sector.
We are talking about people who not even remotely look upon themselves as councillors, politicians, activists or aparatchiks and so on. They are do-gooders who are doing good. They want to be able to work with the local authority, to be associated with it and even on the margin to be influenced by what the council is doing. But I beg the Government to keep in mind that we are speaking of people who are fiercely jealous of their own capacity to decide whether or not they are being made use of and whether they are likely to be made a front organisation for any council or group.
That will surely not happen. Should it threaten, they will be excluded because the amendment quite clearly lays down that such an organisation:
"receives such assistance, but that assistance is not given by the local authority with the intention of avoiding any restriction or control placed upon it by Part V of this Act".
I believe that there is an overwhelming case for the Government either to accept the amendment or to accept the good sense of it as it has been so very worthily moved.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: I rise to add my support for this amendment. For many years I was a county council representative on a charitable trust. I understand that such a trust is not in fact covered by this part of the Bill. Nevertheless I should like to say that on that trust there were four people. I was a county council representative and I comprised one quarter of the directors of that trust.
I know that in the part of the world from which I have just removed there will be caught in this legislation a centre for the disabled complete with workshops. It cost something over £1 million and we are very proud of it. It is just about to open its doors. I understand that the county council and the district council contributed something of the order of £½ million; the rest of the cost, over £½ million (perhaps £600,000 or £700,000) was raised by the voluntary bodies involved with it.
Undoubtedly there will be local authority representation on the management committee, particularly from the social services. I know that the county secretary has already pinpointed this wonderful achievement as coming within the scope of this Bill and will be affected by the controls exercised under this part of the Bill.
I think that it is absolute nonsense. I beg the Minister to listen to what has been said on this issue and particularly to the observations from the independent Benches. One would not obtain such co-operation again. One would not raise money on that kind of scale if one had to endure so much bureaucracy. There are so many voluntary bodies which are dependent on local government contributions.
A number of noble Lords from this Chamber and Members from the other place yesterday went to a joint meeting of the Forestry Commission and the

1445
Countryside Commission. It is a wonderful idea to set up forests on the outskirts of our cities but the first question that was asked at that meeting was: where does the money come from? The answer of course was that the local authorities could contribute for starters. Everybody expects the local authorities to make some contribution. But it is getting more and more difficult. I have written letters of appeal on issues such as the Portsmouth Cathedral and I find that industrialists are less and less inclined now to contribute to such appeals because they are inundated with them.
So in the end it is to the local authority and to some extent central government that we must look for a lead. Anything which despoils that traditional co-operation would be disastrous. I beg the Government to listen to what has been said about this amendment and to take it on board.
Lord Hesketh: In discussing earlier amendments last Monday evening I think that inadvertently I may have spoken to a part of this amendment. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who brought that point to my attention. I hope therefore that the Committee will bear with me when I repeat some of the points which I made then. I think that it will help to explain why we believe that the Committee should resist the amendment.
Amendment No. 131B would introduce three new subsections with the aim of excluding from the scope of the rules on local authority influenced companies those companies which are independent voluntary organisations. New subsection (1A) would exempt independent voluntary association companies. Subsection (1B) defines a voluntary association company by reference to Section 137 of the 1973 Local Government Act. New subsection (1C) defines independence by two tests, one of which would require that the company receives no financial assistance from the local authority; the other would require that any financial assistance is not given for the purpose of avoiding restrictions.
I think that there is very little between the movers of this amendment and the Government as to the substance of what we want to achieve. Such differences as there are concern the most effective way of achieving what we want.
Let me begin by reminding the Committee that the definitions that we propose for what is to be regarded as a company subject to local authority influence require that the company meets two—not one—tests simultaneously. The first is that there is a close business relationship between the local authority and the company. The second is that there is a substantial overlap between the people associated with the authority and the members of the company's governing organs. I repeat, to be regarded as subject to local authority influence a company must meet both tests at the same time.
The two main forms of the business relationship test would be that the company derives half or more of its turnover or half or more of its capital from the local authority. Members of the Committee will see that this test therefore addresses the same point as paragraph (a) of the proposed new subsection (1C). Paragraph (a) of the amendment would exempt
1446
a company that receives no financial assistance from a local authority. But before the test set out in the Bill could be satisfied, a company would have to receive not merely some financial assistance, but more than half its turnover or capital from the local authority. Paragraph (a) therefore seems to be aimed at exempting companies which could never come within the definition. For that reason, it would seem to be unnecessary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is as far as the Minister got at one o'clock on Tuesday morning. Perhaps I may congratulate him on reading his brief this time rather more slowly than he did then.
Lord Hesketh: I am sure that I am not the only Member of this Chamber who after the hour of midnight tends inadvertently to speed up slightly.
Paragraph (b) of the proposed new subsection (1C) would, I agree, cover companies that meet the test, because it would disregard any assistance that was not given with the intention of avoiding any control under Part V of the Bill. It would, therefore, have the effect of exempting some companies which would otherwise be covered by the controls.
A technical criticism can be made of the drafting of this proposal. The controls that are relevant are those under Part IV as well as Part V.
But there is a more serious problem with the proposal. We do not think that it is sensible to legislate on the basis of whether the local authority is giving financial assistance with the aim of avoiding a restriction or control. We think that this test is almost impossible to apply. A local authority intent on avoiding the controls is not likely to pass a resolution saying that that is its intention. The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, asked what evidence I have. There will be no evidence until the Bill I becomes an Act and is passed into law. Applying the test would therefore involve distinguishing between apparent motives and real motives which we believe would be a fruitful source of dispute. We do not therefore think that it is possible to proceed on that basis.
We do, however, share the aims of the movers of the amendment of excluding from the controls companies which are genuine voluntary organisations. Let me remind the Committee that before such a company could be covered by the controls it would have both to have a fifth or more of its directors or members associated with the local authority, and have half or more of its business associated with the local authority. In these circumstances we think that there is a strong likelihood that the local authority will have an influence over the company.
But we accept that, in spite of such prima facie evidence of influence, there can be cases where other factors will demonstrate that the company is independent. My right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government has undertaken that we will exempt the companies under the umbrella of the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux. This is because we accept that these companies, even if they meet the tests which define a local authority influenced company, are in fact independent.

1447
In discussion with representatives of the Advice Services Alliance, my officials have made clear that Ministers are ready to consider exempting other voluntary bodies which can similarly demonstrate their independence. We think that in many cases such independence will be capable of being demonstrated by a combination of the terms of the company's constitution, charitable status, and membership of a national grouping of such voluntary bodies which demands that its members be independent. Furthermore, we do not rule out the possibility that there will be other ways of demonstrating independence even though the company does meet the twin test of getting half or more of its income from the local authority and at the same time having a fifth or more of its governing board linked to the authority.
I am happy to make clear that we shall be very ready to exercise our powers under the Bill to exempt companies which—although they meet the tests—can show that they are independent of the local authority with which they are thus closely linked.
To sum up, we think that one category of company covered by the amendment—as in paragraph (a)—could not in any event meet the definitions that would bring that category of company within the controls on influenced companies. We therefore think that this is an unnecessary part. For the rest, we think that companies which do meet both tests are in a position to be influenced by a local authority, but even here we shall be glad to exempt voluntary bodies which can show that they are, in spite of that, independent.
On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before the noble Lord sits down, can we be clear what he is offering the Committee as regards this amendment? Is he saying that there is a category of bodies which the Government will be happy to exempt—namely, members of the umbrella organisation to which he referred.
Lord Hesketh: It was the Citizens' Advice Bureaux.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Is he saying that there could well be other bodies which, on their merits, would be exempted? We are faced here with the ludicrous situation that hundreds, if not thousands, of bodies will believe that they ought to be exempted. The Minister is saying, "Queue up one at a time, make your case, let us examine your credentials and your history, and we may or may not exempt this, that or the other one." It is ludicrous, time-wasting and unnecessary.
The amendment asks the Government to accept that although there may well be some bodies which are excluded in the definition, they will be excluded as exceptions. The Minister is saying that there are thousands of bodies which could be exempted, but each body must individually prove its case. It is a
1448
nonsense and a sham. The Minister has given the Committee a rotten answer.
Lord Hylton: Can the Minister very kindly say what will be the position of organisations such as the National Housing and Town Planning Council and other national organisations such as MIND, MENCAP and Age Concern?
Lord Hesketh: First, we shall be prepared to consider the question of independence to be demonstrated without an individual application, because there may well be groups. Therefore it is not correct to say that each application will be individual.
On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, conditions vary from case to case. However, the factors that we would consider would be the terms of the company's constitution, whether it had charitable status, whether it was a member of a national grouping—to which I alluded in my first reply—and whether it received substantial funding from the central government department. Those are all indicators of the level of true independence of an organisation from a local authority.
Lord Hayter: It is true that yesterday I had an inkling of the Government's attitude to this amendment in the circumstances that the Minister has indicated. However, he has gone further this time. I am much obliged to him for that. It would be churlish to turn such an attitude into any form of rejection. We should like to study the matter extremely carefully. It is a complicated issue. The Minister has made it quite clear that his aims and our aims are very nearly identical. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Control of minority interests etc. in certain companies]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 131C:
Page 75, line 40, at end insert—
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above authorise any company which is a voluntary organisation within the meaning of Section 137 (2D) of the Local Government Act 1972, and which provides a facility, notwithstanding that the local authority may provide financial assistance to that company under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is related to what the Government said in respect of this matter. They have stated that they will exempt, by authorisation, not for profit companies providing a local facility which is not funded under Section 137. Because it appears arbitrary to exclude Section 137 funded projects, the amendment seeks to require the exemption to be more general.
Clause 68 provides that a local authority may not take a minority interest in a company in general,

1449
except where the Secretary of State authorises it. That could have a serious impact on many voluntary organisation companies which are funded by local authorities. Councils have in general wished to place someone on the board, the management committee or the council of a voluntary organisation which they fund so that lines of communication can be kept open and to ensure that public money is being spent wisely. From the point of view of the voluntary organisation, it can often be useful to have a representative of the local authority on the committee because voluntary organisations need to be aware of the thinking of their local council, whether or not it funds them, about their work, funding and future and their relationship with the council.
In its consultation paper Local Authorities' Interests in Companies the department suggested that it would be prepared to authorise by order or regulation the taking of minority interests in certain classes of company. The relevant categories for the voluntary sector are: a Section 25 funded housing association; a non-profit-making company which provides a facility used by or which is for the benefit of residents of the local authority's area and to which the authority gives or has given financial assistance under a power other than Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972; an enterprise agency; a professional association; a company limited by guarantee concerned solely with the promotion of commerce, art, science, education, religion or charity; or any profession which is permitted to omit the word "limited" from its name.
This excludes a great many voluntary organisations which receive funding from authorities under Section 137. There is no clear reason for discriminating against those who are funded under Section 137, as opposed to any other power, and it seems to us quite arbitrary to select these agencies for exclusion from the restriction against minority interests. Section 137 provides that the local authority must be of the view that the spending must be of direct benefit to its area, or part of it, or the inhabitants, or some of them. It seems a little absurd that they cannot maintain a presence on the management committee of a voluntary organisation in order to satisfy themselves that the organisation continues to be of such direct benefit.
One of the main ways in which local authorities use Section 137 is to fund voluntary organisations. Although there is widespread evidence that local authorities sometimes use Section 137 when in fact there are specific powers available which they should use instead, there are still some important cases where a local authority must use Section 137. I shall briefly indicate them. First, they include some of the representation and advocacy work of law centres and advice agencies; some aspects of race relations and equal opportunities work; some of the work of local development agencies, such as councils for voluntary service, which co-ordinate and support the activities of other voluntary groups; organisations such as action research centres which arrange secondments from the private sector to local voluntary groups; some health projects where they fall outside the health services and Public Health
1450
Act 1968; projects involving support to prisoners' families. My noble friend Lord Dean, because of his voluntary work, is well aware of organisations which undertake those aspects of the work. The last category includes case work and community development work in projects involving advice and support to migrant and refugee communities.
Another circumstance where Section 137 has to be used is when one tier of local government decides to fund projects which are the responsibility of another tier of local government. For example, the provision of wardens in sheltered accommodation comes under social services rather than housing powers and therefore in the case of a district council it has to be funded under Section 137. Similarly in a metropolitan district council there may be some aspects of transport or crime prevention which the district council wants to support even though it is the joint boards which have the statutory responsibility.
The purpose of the amendment is to seek a commitment from the Government that they will be prepared to authorise voluntary organisations irrespective of the powers under which the facility is funded. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has indicated, the amendment is directed to a specific point in the consultation paper on Local Authorities' Interests in Companies which we issued last year. In discussing how far local authorities should be able to hold minority interests in companies we said that local authorities ought always to be able to hold minority interests in companies that they assist which are voluntary bodies in the sense of the amendment and which provide a facility for the use or the benefit of the inhabitants of the area of the authority. We added the qualification, however, that such assistance should have been made under some power other than Section 137. The reason for this was that the list of companies in which participation was possible covered those where there was an important policy aim to be secured by such participation. Where the assistance was given under some power other than Section 137 we accepted that it was useful for local authorities to supplement those specific powers by using companies.
Section 137 is, however, different in kind since it covers everything for which there are no powers and there has not therefore been the same endorsement by Parliament of local authority action. A different treatment therefore seemed justified.
However, we have reviewed this approach, particularly in the light of the changes in Section 137 made by the Bill. In the light of that we have concluded that we should not press for the qualification proposed in the consultation document. We shall therefore be proposing that local authorities shall be free to participate in any voluntary body, in the sense of the amendment, which they have assisted and which provides a facility for the benefit of the inhabitants of their area, regardless, of what power that assistance is given under. In the light of that assurance I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will feel that he is able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My colleague the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I were puzzled at how the Government could reconcile what they said earlier and a possible resistance of the amendment. What the noble Lord has said is that the Government have reflected on what they said earlier and in the light of what they have done in the Bill they will in effect be revising the guidelines. What the Minister has said is that in the light of the intended revision there is no need for the amendment. We entirely agree. The purpose of the amendment is, as I believe the Minister has said, that there are circumstances in which funding other than by Section 137 for some activities ought properly to be given the benefit of the protections that we are seeking. The Minister will understand that we shall have to read very carefully what he has said. We may have to come back at a later stage, but what the Minister has said sounds hopeful to us and we are grateful to him if that hope is well placed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 131D and 131E not moved.]
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Authorities acting jointly and by committees]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 131F:
Page 77, line 20, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: The amendment is necessary because of a rather extraordinary provision in Clause 70 which follows Clauses 65 and 66 and appears to have what must be an unintended result. I cannot believe that this is what was originally intended. Clause 65 concerns controlled companies and Clause 66 influenced companies. Clause 70 states that any company which would not otherwise be controlled by or subject to the influence of a local authority can, if the actions, powers and interests of more than one local authority are treated together, be considered to be controlled by or subject to the influence of two or more local authorities.
There are differences in the wording of Clauses 65 and 66 which mean that the provision in Clause 70 is nonsensical. There are also differences within Clause 66 between what is called a "business relationship" and a "personnel relationship". Clause 70 would crush those together just as it attempts to crush together Clauses 65 and 66.
I shall give an example of the way in which that might work if Clause 70 is accepted unamended. I take the example of the management of a community association. The management committee is seven strong. There are no councillors, and no one is appointed by a local authority. But of the seven, one works for a firm of consultants which provides professional or managerial services to local authorities and he is caught in that way. A second works for a local authority which may not have contact with any of the local authorities concerned. A third holds office in a political party which may not be in control or have a majority in any of the
1452
local authorities concerned. A fourth retired from employment with the local authority two years ago. He may not now have any connection with the local authority but the rules state that if one has retired from a local authority within the past four years, one is deemed to be associated with that authority and is caught by the provisions in the Bill.
There is no common thread between any of these people. They have no connection with each other except that they happen to be members of the management committee of the community association. There is no common thread between any of them and the local authorities with whom they have had connections. There is no coincidence of connections between them. However, under the terms of Clause 70 their connections are added together and the community association can be held to have more than 50 per cent. of its management committee associated with local authorities.
We are familiar with the concept of totting up points in respect of traffic offences which lead towards a disqualification, and I do not disagree with that principle. However, this is an extension of that principle to the point of madness. In the eyes of the Government these are offences because one is not supposed to take part in voluntary organisations if one has any interest in other aspects of public life. If there is no connection between those "offences", one has an association plus a totally independent and irrelevant association adding up to control.
With the best will in the world, I believe that the Government have some good intentions in some parts of the Bill—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Steady on!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: At least I should like to believe that the Government have some good intentions in some parts of the Bill. I cannot believe that the Government intend the meaning carried in Clause 70(1). If they are to defend it and say that there are abuses which will be corrected by the provision, let us at least know what the abuses are. It is difficult for me to understand what they could possibly be. The example that I have given is by no means outrageous or untypical of the way in which the clause can operate. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hylton: I read Clause 70 as a non-lawyer, and it appears that subsection (1)(b) is directly relevant to the case of the four voluntary bodies about which I asked the Minister a question when the Committee dealt with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Hayter. I ask the Minister to take the issue away and read the two amendments in conjunction.
Baroness Phillips: My noble friend on the Front Bench has evoked a strange thought in my mind. It is all right—it is not erotic! I am not thinking of opening a massage parlour under local government funding, although that would not be unknown.
I am bothered because I know a number of ex-policemen outside London who are closely

1453
connected with voluntary community operations which are funded by the local authority. Am I being too tenuous? After all, indirectly they were paid from local authority funds in the same way as teachers. Therefore, would they come under this clause? I find that matter worrying because we always welcome such people retaining their interest on retirement. There is an increasing number, so perhaps the Minister can reasure me that they will not be covered by the clause.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment would remove subsection (1) of Clause 70. That subsection provides that where two or more local authorities are involved with a company, their interests should be aggregated for the purpose of deciding whether a company is subject to the control or influence of a local authority.
We think that it is quite clear that some provision of the kind contained in Clause 70(1) is necessary. It would be indefensible if a company that was 51 per cent. owned by one local authority was subject to the controls of Part V, while another owned 50 per cent. by one local authority, and 50 per cent. by another was not subject to the controls. To leave out this subsection would be equivalent to saying that the rules binding local authority committees did not apply to joint committees appointed by two or more local authorities.
It is a our clear intention that when the two tests—of personnel linkage and of business association—are applied, we should take into account only the interests of those authorities which in part meet both tests. In other words, if the whole of the personnel linkage is with one authority, and the whole of the business relationship is with another, we do not think that the tests for local authority influence are satisfied. Or, to take what is perhaps a more likely case, if a company which is under the influence of one local authority starts trading with another local authority and that second local authority has no personnel links with the company, then that second local authority should not be regarded as having influence over the company.
As I said, we came to the conclusion that the drafting of this subsection was not as clear as it might be in order to achieve that purpose. We have been able to see at least one way in which the drafting can be improved. However, it is possible that there might be some other ways in which the problem could be tackled. Rather than put down an amendment now which might need to be further amended on Report, we thought it better to consider the matter thoroughly and come back at Report stage with an amendment which effectively addressed the problem.
We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for drawing our attention to the need for clarification in this passage and I am happy to give an assurance that we shall propose such an amendment on Report.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is probably aware, an amendment was tabled in another place which was not then moved. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The deep suspicion in my mind is now crystallising. I had forgotten that today is a Garden Party day and that the Government do not want a Division on the Bill at this time. That is why they are now making nice noises about several of our amendments in turn—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Shame! Disgraceful!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In all conscience, I cannot force the Committee to a Division on matter about which the Minister has not only said that he will return to it at a later stage but that he recognises the justice of our case. The Government have dug a hole for themselves, and they have fallen into it. All credit to the Minister because he is trying hard to clamber up the sides of that hole. I congratulate him. I hope that between now and Report he will find some suitable hand and foot holds, and that he will come back with an amendment which satisfies what he recognises to be the valid point made in our amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 131G:
Page 77, line 37, at end insert—
("(3A) For the purposes of this Part anything done and any power exercisable by a scheme established under section 48 of the Local Government Act 1985 shall not be treated as done or as the case may be exercisable by each of the Local Authorities concerned.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to exempt from the scope of the clause those cases where a collective grant-making scheme in a metropolitan area, such as the London boroughs grants committee, takes an interest in a voluntary organisation which it assists by way of grants under Section 48.
Clause 70 provides for cases where more than one authority is involved in a company. Where the involvement of any of these authorities individually would not lead to the company being deemed to be influenced or controlled but where treating those authorities collectively would lead to the company being deemed to be influenced or being controlled, then that aggregation of local authorities is to be performed and the company deemed to be controlled or influenced. Is not this terrible gobbledegook which has been put together in the name of local government in 1989?
We seek clarification. The clause requires the aggregation of the actions, powers and interests of two or more local authorities. Therefore, we understand the Government's intention to be that the aggregation of the level of business relationships and the level of representation on the board of management or membership must be with the same authorities. However, we would welcome clarification from the Government that they do not intend to count as influenced by each authority a company which in any one financial year receives more than half of its income from a group of councils and which, in the same year, has 20 per cent. of its

1455
board or membership from local authorities but not exactly the same group from whom the income is in that year received. This point is particularly important to historic building trusts which are likely to drift in and out of influenced status. The grants they receive for renovation may well be from a partly different set of authorities from those represented on the company.
Section 48 of the Local Government Act 1985 was a special arrangement made for those metropolitan areas whose metropolitan county authorities were abolished by that Act. It provided for a lead borough in the metropolitan area to administer on behalf of the other boroughs a scheme under a joint committee for the making of grants to voluntary organisations. Section 48 was and can be used only by those collective grant-making schemes. Each scheme annually agrees a budget and levies the member boroughs for their contribution to that budget under a formula geared to each borough's percentage of the population in the area of the scheme.
Thus, the London boroughs grants committee is established under this provision to cover the area of the 33 London boroughs and the City of London and Westminster. All are represented on the committee. For the purposes of Clauses 70 and 66 there is an aggregation of 33 boroughs from whom the organisation funded by the committee will be said to derive one half of its income in any given year. The committee, should it choose to be represented on the management committee of an organisation which it runs, will then be acting on behalf of the 33 boroughs, and its representatives would be a person or persons associated with all 33 boroughs.
If a voluntary organisation were to be influenced by virtue of the circumstances described above, then the consequences would be very serious. Voluntary organisations often need to borrow capital. Advice agencies will need shopfront premises and may need to take out a mortgage. Community transport projects need loans for vehicles, and so on. For such a voluntary organisation, this borrowing would be counted against the credit limits for all 33 boroughs. Therefore, the organisation would have to seek approval of the 33 boroughs before undertaking the capital borrowing. Clearly, that would be practically impossible. The only alternative to this crippling scenario would be for each of the boroughs to allocate a part of their own capital credit allowance to the lead borough for the scheme. That approach was tried in 1987 under the existing capital spending controls and failed to secure the agreement of the boroughs. There is no reason to suppose that it would be successful now.
The combination of Clause 70 aggregation with the definitions of "influence" in Clause 66 and the capital borrowing system set out in Part IV of the Bill mean that it will be virtually impossible for voluntary organisations funded by the scheme, and on which the scheme places a representative, to undertake capital borrowing.
There are a number of voluntary organisations which are partly funded by the LBGC for London-wide work and partly funded directly from
1456
an individual borough for local services. Such voluntary organisations would find themselves doubly influenced under Clause 70 because the two sums would be aggregated.
The bureaucracy generated by this clause would be enormous both for voluntary organisations and for the collective grant giving scheme set up under Section 48. The LBGC in order to secure its own position vis a vis its constituent authorities will have to supervise its 750—and I repeat 750—funded projects very closely, all of which are approved by the 33 London boroughs. It will have to keep up to date records of every change of personnel on all management committees and personal details of those people's connections with any London borough. By the same token, the individual boroughs will have to keep the scheme informed, and the money used for that would be far better spent on the making of grants.
Perhaps I may give a final example. SHAC (The London Housing Aid Centre) is an example of the kind of organisation which will have severe difficulties if Clause 70 is enacted without amendment. That organisation receives about 33 per cent. of its funding in the financial year 1988–89 from the London Residuary Body under arrangements made prior to the abolition of the GLC. Another 25 per cent. comes from the London Boroughs Grants Scheme and 20 per cent. from the Department of the Environment. Of the remaining 22 per cent. a significant proportion comes from contributions which are usually small—under £1,000—from individual London boroughs for the proportion of work done by that organisation in their area. Of the 12 members of the board of trustees, one is a local authority employee, one sits on the board of a housing association and one is the director of the housing association. At least two other members act as consultants to local authorities from time to time. Any or all of those people, depending on their work, the status of the housing association and the terms of the promised exemption, could count as associated with local authorities which are members of the scheme and so are likely to be aggregated together with the scheme by virtue of Clause 70.
I very much hope that the Minister will have listened carefully to the real problems which this clause, unamended, will have certainly for the London boroughs with whom I am proud to be closely associated and also for many other organisations. Of course, the amendment is not only supported by the London Boroughs Grants Scheme but also by NCVO. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has demonstrated beyond any possible shadow of doubt the unbelievable complexities of the implications of this Bill, and this particular part of this Bill. Perhaps I should say that I was one of the founder members of the organisation which the noble Lord mentioned—the London Housing Aid Centre (SHAC)—although it is quite some years since I had any connection with it.
During the drafting of this Bill was any thought given to the situation now obtaining not only in

1457
Greater London but also in the former metropolitan counties, all of which have been abolished? Will the Government bear in mind that the situation in these different urban areas is likely to differ from one to another, and in all cases will not be on the same footing? That is quite a large question, and I leave it to be dealt with by the Government.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am becoming more confused. I am not entirely sure that the Government themselves understand the position. I wish to raise one case in point. I established a buildings preservation trust. A small amount of money came from the private sector, but the vast majority came from the county council and two district councils. The trust was originally chaired by the Lord Lieutenant. The trust continues today and the representatives on that trust are making grants to people of little means who wish to make repairs to properties that it is considered worth preserving. The majority are local authority nominees from the county council and two district councils. One or two people have been brought in from outside for their expertise. The current chairman is the former county planning officer. Presumably, unless has done four years, he is involved.
It may be that we are excluded by these clauses, but the longer I consider the matter the more I believe that we are included. Is it really the proposal within the Bill that this trust, which meets about every three months and which is doing good work, has to go through all this rigmarole because the funds originally came from local government to the extent of 85 per cent. or 90 per cent. under pressure from me as the Member of Parliament? I cannot believe it. I beg the Government to look again at these clauses in order to try to simplify the problem. It is a very worthwhile organisation and there must be similar ones all over the country. If they are being caught by these clauses, it is daft.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment would declare that where a scheme for grants to voluntary bodies has been established under Section 48 of the Local Government Act 1985, the grants paid under that scheme are not to be regarded as done by each of the participating councils. The concern which has given rise to this amendment would be reasonable if it actually existed. However, as I shall try to show, the concern is non-existent, and the amendment is therefore unnecessary.
To do so I must explain a little of the detail of schemes under Section 48. The crucial feature in this context is that there is a designated authority, usually called the lead borough. It is this lead borough which actually makes the payments to the voluntary bodies. The sequence is that the grants committee for the scheme authorises the payment, the lead borough makes the payment and the constituent authorities then reimburse the lead borough in proportion to their population. This is not done on a grant-by-grant basis but on a lump sum basis.
As I explained in connection with the previous amendment, we are not proposing that the interests
1458
of local authorities should be aggregated for the purposes of the tests to determine whether a company is under local authority influence unless the authority shares in both the personnel link and the business relationship. As I have said, we shall be seeing whether we can make this point more explicit in Clause 70. I believe that this point clearly defines the situation with individuals because it does not cover the business relationship. The two points have to be joined together for the test.
Given the way in which the Section 48 schemes work, and given what I have said about the way in which interests will be aggregated, it follows that grants under Section 48 could not lead to a company being regarded as under the influence of the constituent councils generally. It would theoretically be possible for a company to be regarded as under the influence of the lead borough, but that would only be where one-fifth or more of the members of the governing bodies of the company are associated with the lead borough. We are aware of no such cases.
We do not think that the worries expressed about these grant schemes exist because the financial relations of the companies assisted by them are exclusively with the lead boroughs concerned. As far as the other boroughs are concerned, they can therefore disregard payments under the schemes in working out whether a company is subject to their influence.
Finally, the London Residuary Body is not a local authority. Therefore any payments that it makes would not fall to be counted as a payment by a local authority. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The purpose of this stage of the Bill, as the Committee is well aware, is to clear away misunderstandings from outside the Chamber. We have brought to the Committee the obvious misunderstandings of some very important people; namely, 33 town clerks or chief executives and leaders of councils. The fact that they have seen a threat to what they are doing because of the wording of the Bill is sufficiently indicative of the requirement for it to be either tidied up or changed.
The Minister said that, where there is an arrangement, for example in London, the grant-giving body, which has the approval of the 33 boroughs, comes to a decision and then decides to grant-aid one of the bodies. The money is paid by the lead authority provided that that authority does not transgress the rule as regards the number of people on the board of the voluntary body who would escape. It is ludicrous.
Let us suppose that inside that lead authority at member or officer level there exist the best people to look after the interests and money of all 33 boroughs and the viability of the voluntary body. Let us suppose that they collectively decide that it is from the lead authority that those men or women should represent the 33 boroughs. That immediately places the grant at risk. It also puts the relationship at risk and makes their actions wrong.

1459
This is not the place to deal with the manifestation of what the Government have said as regards the branches. We intend to deal with the root of the problem at the Report stage of the Bill. The Minister has re-interpreted understanding given by himself and his colleagues that have been accepted by people outside as to the way in which the scheme will work. They will read very carefully what he has said. I have no doubt that they will give us some advice which we shall deploy at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70 agreed to.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 131H:
After Clause 70, insert the following new clause:
("Exemptions from ss. 65 and 66
Registered charities established as companies limited by guarantee or as societies registered or deemed to be registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965, whose purposes include preserving for the benefit of the public buildings, monuments or other edifices or structures of whatsoever kind and wheresoever in the United Kingdom situate, of particular beauty, or historical, architectural or constructional interest shall not be deemed to be subject to the provisions affecting companies in which local authorities have interests as defined in sections 65 and 66 of Part V of this Act.").
The noble Lords said: The discussions this afternoon have centred a great deal around voluntary organisations. The Committee may or may not be aware that many charities will fall within the definition of companies under the control or influence of a local authority. As chairman of English Heritage I am particularly concerned with the impact that this will have on charities concerned with preserving historic buildings.
Perhaps I may briefly explain the work of buildings preservation trusts. These trusts are registered charities formed by members of the community in many parts of the United Kingdom for the purpose of preserving and promoting the preservation of historic buildings. The majority accomplish this charitable purpose by buying, restoring or selling problem buildings of historical or architectural merit in which, for various reasons, neither the public nor the private sector is willing to invest. Sometimes it is necessary for a preservation trust to make a longer-term commitment involving the acquisition and management of a building.
I am very glad to say that over the years governments have proved staunch supporters of the buildings preservation trust movement, universally recognised as a highly cost-effective means of achieving the preservation and very often the rehabilitation and practical use of historic buildings. It was in order to encourage the formation of more buildings preservation trusts that the then Secretary of State for the Environment undertook in 1975 to match pound for pound any sum that could be raised from the private sector in order to establish a national revolving fund to provide cheap working capital to help buildings preservation trusts with this important work.
The Architectural Heritage Fund opened for business in 1976 with a capital of £1 million. As a result of the commitment and thanks to the support of successive governments, English Heritage and the Secretary of State for Scotland, as well as its own fund-raising efforts, the fund now has a working capital of £4·5 million from which it has loaned over £8 million in support of more than 170 preservation projects since 1976.
For sensible technical and tax reasons the great majority of buildings preservation trusts are established as companies limited by guarantee, using a model memorandum and articles of association drawn up by the Architectural Heritage Fund and approved by the Charity Commissioners. Ironically, the clauses in this Bill will almost certainly apply to the Architectural Heritage Fund itself because it is a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee. It is also a company controlled by government, since the Department of the Environment appoints 50 per cent. of its council of management.
Building preservation trusts are rooted in local communities and always involve co-operation, if not a more formal partnership, between the public and private sectors. Although trusts which are established as limited liability companies are subject to the provisions of company law, their operations are conducted exclusively for charitable purposes. No building preservation trust director, for instance, receives a salary, and any excess of income over expenditure is ploughed back into the company's next project. Very few building preservation trusts have paid staff, and the complex and demanding work they do is undertaken, as in the case of so many charities, by busy people willing to give up time for a good cause. I am sure that the Government would wish to ease and not complicate the task of such people.
Building preservation trusts have to mobilise very substantial sums of money to finance their work. Like every other charity, most raise money by public appeal and fund-raising events, but preservation trusts also look to the Government, governmental agencies and local authorities for grant-aid for their projects; to English Heritage for Section 3A grants and Section 10 grants; and to historic building grants and home improvement grants from local authorities. For up-front capital they often borrow cheaply from the Architectural Heritage Fund. Many other trusts borrow on commercial terms from banks. Local authorities often come into that by making low-interest loans or by accepting deferred payments on the purchase price of buildings in local authority ownership. In addition, building preservation trusts sometimes need to seek repayment guarantees from local authorities as security for loans from the Architectural Heritage Fund.
Given the role that local authorities are required or asked to play in making funds available and also in the question of listed building consents, planning permission, and building inspection grants, it is entirely reasonable that they seek representation or are invited to be represented on the board of their local building preservation trusts. The extent of that

1461
representation varies but, whether or not a local authority controls a majority of votes on the board of directors or management, it should be emphasised that every director of a building preservation trust is charged with ensuring that the trust fulfils its charitable objects and purposes. To that end, the directors are responsible for ensuring that the trust's money, irrespective of its source, is used for those charitable purposes.
Therefore the impact of the Bill could be serious. It is with considerable concern that everybody involved with building preservation trusts has noted that they will fall under the definition of companies controlled by local authorities or subject to local authority influence, and in particular that they will be treated as if they were local authorities for the purposes of Part IV of the Bill. That seems to mean, for example, that the borrowing and expenditure of such trusts, even moneys obtained from the private sector or from grant-making charities, would have to be counted against the local authority's capital expenditure allocation; that trusts would have to conduct their affairs along the lines of a local authority committee: and that the local authority would have to monitor a trust's operations to ensure that it complied with the provisions of any order the Secretary of State might make under Clause 67.
It is not difficult to conclude that these and other provisions of the Bill could make it almost impossible for certain building preservation trusts to continue to pursue the charitable purposes for which they were established and registered, which they have carried out with such success and distinction in the past.
However, I note that the Bill provides for the Secretary of State, by means of a direction, to exempt particular companies from the provisions affecting local authority controlled or influenced companies; but it is surely unsatisfactory to subject an unknown number of charities to the provisions of an Act unless and until they obtain an exemption. Such charities seems to be judged guilty until they are proved innocent. Moreover, the pursuit of their charitable purpose is bound to be interrupted if a lot of work is required to make the case for an exemption.
Therefore I hope that the Government will accept the amendment and allow the excellent partnership between local authorities and building preservation trusts to continue. If not, will they urgently consider which organisations will be exempt so that they can at least be relieved of their agony and allowed to get on with the job that they do so well? I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, has answered the question which I posed on the previous amendment. He is telling the Chamber—and it is a very serious matter—that a building preservation trust such as the one I outlined, although it is a fairly small one—I think he probably has personal knowledge of it—would almost certainly be caught by the terms of the Bill. That is so stupid that it would be ridiculous. Local authorities themselves are now referring cases which they think are deserving—but which they
1462
cannot help because their moneys have been so restricted—to those kinds of trusts.
We carried out the kind of scheme which the noble Lord has described. We took over a derelict property—which incidentally was sold to us cheaply by the local authority—and did it up and sold it, but most of the work now is by way of grants and loans at what I suppose would be called reasonable rates of interest. I think last time we were charging about 5 per cent., which would be a very reasonable rate of interest today, but our aim was to ensure that where buildings were falling into disrepair and people were deserving of help—and we always looked into their resources and satisfied ourselves totally as to that—we might make some grant to help them repair the buildings. That must be right, and no doubt it is what the Government wish to happen. Therefore it seems stupid to put any sort of impediment in the way of the working of trusts of the kind which the noble Lord has so clearly outlined.
I very much hope that the Government will accept the amendment, or at least come back on Report with something which excludes such worthwhile organisations.
Lord Hylton: I have every sympathy for the amendment, but if the particular class of charity with which the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, is concerned is exempted, why not exempt all registered charities? I urge the Government to make use of the protection that is presently provided both by the district auditor and by the existence of the Charity Commission and vetting bodies, instead of introducing the unbelievably complex provisions, checks and controls which are in the Bill.
Lord Moyne: I should like to support all that my noble friend Lord Montagu has said. While head of an independent organisation, he stands at the right hand of the Government in protecting our heritage. I think that he should be listened to very attentively by the Government because in my view he is almost a member of the Government. I hope that he will be regarded as such.
Lord Hesketh: This new clause would exempt from the controls on companies subject to local authority control or influence all companies whose purposes include preserving public buildings and monuments or places of beauty or interest. The amendment brings us back to the basic question which we have been debating for most of the afternoon. This concerns which companies are to be regarded as so closely associated with local authorities that they should be controlled as part of the local authority sector.
We recognise that many companies in which local authorities have an interest are doing valuable work in preserving the national heritage. We welcome that. However, we doubt that it is appropriate to exempt certain companies from controls to which they ought otherwise to be subject simply because they are doing work of national importance.
For this reason we think that the new clause is flawed. If the amendment were accepted it would mean that no matter how closely a company was

1463
under the control of a local authority it should not be subject to controls if its purposes include the preservation of the heritage. Let me give an example. Consider a company in which the whole of the voting rights are held by or on behalf of the local authority; all the directors are councillors of the local authority, and the company is wholly dependent on the local authority for its finance. The company could not then be regarded as anything other than a creature of the local authority. However, the new clause would provide that if that company included among its objectives the preservation of the heritage it would not be treated as part of the local authority sector.
Perhaps I may draw the Committee's attention to the precise drafting of the clause. The condition required for exemption is that the company includes among its purposes the preservation of the heritage. That test does not mean that the company must be doing anything to satisfy that purpose, merely that such an object must be one of the purposes that the company can pursue. The company could also have other objects which are quite different and could actually be pursuing those and not the preservation of the heritage.
We have had a number of representations from various companies which see themselves as threatened by these proposals. We have been suggesting to them that they have discussions with the department's officials. Where such discussions have been held in other cases—for instance, with the Yorkshire Mining Museum Trust Ltd.—we have been able to convince them that the fears that they have were mistaken. That may be the case here.
The controls which we are proposing are of two basic types. The first concerns propriety in the conduct of business. Such controls should pose no problems to well-run companies. The second concerns the capital finance of companies which form part of the local authority sector. It seems to us that, when a company is borrowing mainly on the basis of expectations that the money to service the debt will come from local authority funds, then it is reasonable that that borrowing should be controlled as part of the borrowing of the local authority sector. It does not seem to us that the purpose for which such borrowing is undertaken is relevant to the question of whether it should be controlled.
I have argued that the crucial question is how closely a company is linked to a local authority. We think that the tests set out in the Bill for the categories of company subject to local authority control or influence adequately delimit those companies that should be regarded as part of the local authority sector. If a company is within that sector, then it should be subject to the controls. If it is not, then it should not. We think that the proposed new clause would undermine that approach.
We have received a number of representations from, among others, English Heritage and the Architectural Heritage Fund. My officials will be arranging a meeting to discuss the position of the building preservation trusts. I am sure that this will help to clarify the issues that concern them. Earlier
1464
this afternoon, during discussion on Amendment No. 131B, I talked about the possibility of exempting further voluntary bodies which put a good case to the department. I explained that one of the indicators for which we would be looking was the independence of a body from the local authority. Other factors could demonstrate beyond doubt that it is to all intents and purposes operating independently of the local authority. It may well be that the building preservation trusts will be able to demonstrate this level of independence and thus enable us to exempt them. I hope that, with what I have said, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, has made an incontrovertible case for the exclusion of building preservation trusts from the controls of Part V of the Bill. He set out the additional work that would be required of building preservation trusts if they were to be covered by the Bill. He explained the effect on local authority capital finance and the difficulties there would be in receiving as they do now local authority capital for their work. He did not especially refer to it but it would also affect government controls over local authority participation, because Part V of the Bill provides that in these circumstances the Secretary of State shall have substantial controls over the ways in which local authorities participate in such companies. The noble Lord's case for the damage that would be done is overwhelming.
I accept, as the Minister said, that the amendment is technically flawed. To include building preservation in its purposes would be far too wide and would allow exemption even if the trust did not do anything about building preservation but did a good many other things. What this has revealed, and what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in referring to SHAC, and the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, in referring to family service units, have revealed, is that the Bill is inadequately drafted for its purpose. It reveals that the independence of a charitable organisation of this kind is to be established not on anything laid down in Part V of the Bill but by, as my noble friend Lord Graham pointed out, all these bodies queuing up, asking to be exempted and being told, "You are exempted, but you are not exempted". It is to be established on a definition of independence made by officials in the department.
This is far too serious a matter to be left to administrative convenience in that way. If the Minister will not give us an undertaking that at Report stage this part of the Bill will be amended in order to make it clear on the face of the Bill what the Government mean by independence so that people will not have to come cap in hand to ask for independence, I promise him that we shall put down not 100 amendments but 1,000 amendments on the same lines as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu.
There are thousands of examples of charitable organisations doing good work with the assistance of local authorities. They deserve to be exempted in exactly the same way as those referred to by noble Lords on the Cross-Benches and by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. I shall ask for the support of the

1465
noble Lord, Lord Montagu, in these cases because I am sure that I shall be able to convince him that these cases are as deserving as the case of which he has special and distinguished knowledge.
This part of the Bill has been revealed to be inadequate. It is necessary, before a decision is taken on this amendment or on any of the amendments, for the Minister to recognise that he has to deal not only with the particular case but with the principle behind it. How is independence to be defined?
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I thank my noble friend for his reply to my amendment. I understand that the wording of the clause is perhaps flawed in some ways. However, we have had a useful debate on the clause. I take the point that the test which my noble friend outlined might not apply to such property trusts, and I certainly welcome an opportunity on behalf of those preservation trusts and English Heritage to come to the department and discuss them further. I hope he will bear in mind that this will have to be defined better by the time we reach Report stage. In view of the assurance I have had this afternoon that this matter will be looked at with us, I beg—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord asks leave to withdraw his amendment, may I have a reply to the points that I made to the Minister? They deserve a reply.
Lord Hesketh: They deserve a reply to this extent. I gave various undertakings earlier this afternoon to the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, which is why I specifically mentioned Amendment No. 131B. The noble Lord, whose amendment it was—in a way the amendment is similar to the amendment before us—felt that he wished to consider what I had said and did not ask me to go further. I feel that I have gone a considerable distance already this afternoon in the reply that I gave to him, which is why the noble Lord did not press his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I thought so at the time, too. However, the noble Lord is continuing to say, as if he had not given the undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, that specific bodies shall have an opportunity to go to the department and argue for their independence. He made the point to the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, about the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux. He made a similar point about building preservation trusts to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. But what he is saying about going to the department and arguing the case is in conflict with the offer he made to the noble Lord, Lord Hayter. We want a clear assurance that the Government recognise that this cannot be done by the department case by case. It has to be done by amendment to the Bill. That is the answer I want from the Minister.
Lord Hesketh: I am not willing to go further than I have already gone today. I remind the noble Lord that I pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that we would be prepared to consider the question of independence that can be demonstrated without the requirement for individual application.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I have no doubt that noble Lords will look forward to having this clarified at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Application of Part IV]:
5 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): I call Amendment No. 131L, which is tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that Amendments Nos. 131J and 131K should be dealt with before this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: It is my information that the amendments are in fact correctly marshalled. I have been told that I should call Amendment No. 131L before Amendments Nos. 131J and 131K. The first amendment refers to page 43, whereas the other two refer to page 44.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 131L:
Page 43, line 39, leave out ("1990") and insert ("1991").
The noble Lord said: In that case we are moving on to Part IV of the Bill and it is important that we should take this opportunity to look at Part IV as a whole. I say that because what this represents is a new approach to the capital finance of local authorities which has been presaged for many years and which according to the proposals in the Bill is now to be brought into effect by 1990. Our amendment would delay implementation of the new system for one year.
My advisers will confirm that I am not generally in favour of seeking to delay implementation of a Bill for its own sake; we would not do so just to make a political point. However, the issues here are much too serious and reflect an historical period of discussion about capital finance of local authorities which makes it necessary to approach the matter in this way on this occasion, and perhaps on this occasion alone.
The origins of discussion of capital finance for local authorities are, in this decade at any rate, within the 1980 Local Government, Planning and Land Act. The truth of the matter is—and this was recognised quite early on—that the proposals for capital controls made in the 1980 planning legislation have not been a success. That fact was recognised as early as 1984 when the Government proposed changes to the system, and, more recently, in the past two years—and I shall not go back further than that, although I could do so—there have been a considerable number of substantial changes to the system of capital controls of local authority finance.
Perhaps I may give just a few examples of those controls: the Local Government Prescribed Expenditure Amendment Regulation 1987 which was brought in to bring finance leases of equipment and machinery within the controls of the system; the

1467
Local Government Prescribed Expenditure Works Regulations 1987 which were brought in to provide an exemption from the deferred purchase provision of the 1987 Act for schemes under £3 million; the Local Government Act of 1987 which changed the timing of the expenditure as regards when expenditure is scored for capital control purposes and deferred purchase schemes; the Local Government Prescribed Expenditure Amendment Regulations 1988 which brought leases of land and buildings over three years within the controls—previously the period had been 20 years; the Local Government Finance Act 1988—that is the poll tax Act—which in Sections 130 to 132 brought the acquisition of interests in land and buildings for less than the freehold values and acquisitions of share and loan capital within the scope of the capital expenditure controls; and the revised block borrowing approval and general consent to the use of capital moneys in February 1989 which prevented local authorities from using capital receipts to pre-fund capital expenditure.
It is therefore quite clear that we do not have a perfect system which has been carefully thought out over a period of time; we have a system which was introduced in 1980, which is frankly a botched system and one which has required a substantial change over a period of years. In the Green Paper Paying for Local Government in 1986 the Government set out the first firm proposals for putting matters right. They followed that process by introducing a consultation paper, Review of the local authority capital expenditure control systems in England and Wales, in February of 1986. However, they withdrew that paper in response to opposition from local government. Finally, the most recent consultation paper, of July 1988, which deals with capital expenditure and finance, is the basis of the proposals in Part IV of the Bill.
Therefore the Government, apart from the period in which the capital controls did not work after the 1980 Act, have for nearly four years been dipping a toe into the water. They have been making proposals to the public, to the local authority sector, about capital expenditure controls. Now, having dragged their feet for all of that period, they are proposing to implement a completely new system only six months after the legislation has been enacted. That is the implication of the provisions in this part of the Bill.
We do not think that this will work. There are three fundamental reasons why we think so. The first is that there is no reason to suppose that the drafting is any better now than it was before. We shall see in the debate which follows on the amendments which we have to this part of the Bill the many defects in the drafting that still remain. Secondly, the drafting is skeletal to say the least. In this part of the Bill, as I said on Second Reading, there are an immense number of regulations left to the Secretary of State. None of that will be finalised until the Bill has been enacted.
The Secretary of State has powers to make regulations under Clauses 37(1)(k), 37(3). 38(5), 41(5), 42(2), 46(1)(c), 46(5), 47(2), 47(3) and 51(4).
1468
I shall not weary the Committee with what those regulations are about. However, it is quite clear that this is not a Bill to enact anything; it is to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations in certain matters. In other words, this is not real legislation at all and what is proposed is getting close to the situation where the Secretary of State will do what he wants.
In fact, it is worse than that, if that proves to be the case. I say that because local government has not been given any indication of how the new system will operate in practice. If what is proposed is to be enacted and local authorities are to make preparations for it to take place in 1990, surely they should now be given an indication of the likely level of resources in terms of the basic credit approvals—the new acronym, BCAs—and the annual capital guidelines, ACGs. They should also know on what basis the other acronym, the SCAs, the supplementary credit approvals, will be considered.
In Committee in another place on 4th April the then Minister, Mr. John Selwyn Gummer, said (at col. 588 of Hansard) that each borough treasurer or director of finance in each local authority knew exactly what the implications of these proposals were for capital expenditure. I challenge that statement and I challenge the Minister to show us how that can be so. All of these regulations are the essence of this part of the Bill and yet the regulations themselves are not published. The basic credit allowance, the basic credit approval and the annual capital guidelines are essential to any understanding of the implications of the Bill and they are essential to any financial planning; but these, too, have not been published.
We have before us one of the worst pieces of interfering and badly thought out legislation which has been produced in the whole series of 50 legislative Acts affecting local government which have been produced in the past 10 years. Has there ever been a part of a Bill which has introduced as many as 15 new regulation-making powers for the Secretary of State? I shall gladly give the Minister time to get evidence on that question because the regulation-making powers are not only numerous but they are absolutely fundamental to any understanding whatever of the meaning of this part of the Bill. That is why so many of our amendments need to be probing amendments. We merely want to know what the Government intend. We are not being told what they intend.
Local authorities' capital expenditure is probably the most difficult of all aspects of local authority finance. So much so that many people, even those in local government, shy away from it, and with some reason, because not only are the rules complicated but, as I have shown, they change all the time. Even if one learns something, one will almost certainly have to unlearn it within the following few months.
When dealing with a local government finance Bill last year, I said that I understood the rate support grant for a few weeks in the 1970s. I never understood it before, and I have never understood it since. I do not claim to understand the capital

1469
finance system now, and I do not believe that directors of finance or borough treasurers will understand it when they read the text of the Bill, assuming that it is enacted as it is at present drafted. Although it is difficult to understand, that does not mean that it is not important. It is important because, as my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick will show, the housing implications of capital finance are fundamental.
A large part of local authorities' capital finance is used for the provision, renovation, repair and maintenance of housing. It is analogous to examples we have seen recently in the Water Bill. A great deal of criticism came from the Government Front Bench about the inadequacy of investment in the water and sewerage system under the Labour Government in the late 1970s. Equally passionate denunciations came from these Benches about the inadequacy of investment in the water and sewerage infrastructure in the 1980s under this Government. Whoever was right—let us assume for the sake of argument that we were both right; that investment was inadequate in the 1970s and the 1980s—is it not equally true that investment in the provision, restoration and maintenance of our housing stock is as important a social issue and that the investment has been inadequate for the purpose for many years?
In case anyone should think that that is a party-political point, I would claim that investment in our housing stock has been inadequate under a Labour Government as well as under a Conservative Government.
The fact that housing is such a significant part of local authorities' capital expenditure indicates how important the issue is to our society and people. Local authorities' involvement in housing, however much the Government may wish to do away with it in the future, will, for the foreseeable future, be an important part of our housing provision, and an essential part of our housing provision for those of our people who are most in need.
We have a part of a Bill which has been in gestation for many years. It is a reflection of the inadequacy of Government thinking about capital controls for even longer. It is now to be introduced within six months of Royal Assent.
Those who are most concerned and knowledgeable about those matters (the local authority associations) take the view, which I put to the Committee in all sincerity, that the system of capital controls proposed in the Bill is not necessary in itself and that the other controls available to a local authority, notably the control by central Government of the revenue implications of capital expenditure, are adequate for the purpose. That issue is wider than that contained in the amendment, and I do not make a major or lengthy point about it.
The point that must be made is that to enact this part of the Bill by 1990, as is proposed, is courting similar injustice and administrative muddle as was caused by the 1980 Act, which has damaged the responsibility and effectiveness of local authorities in planning their capital expenditure for a decade. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I support my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey because the amendment he has moved is one of the most important amendments in the Bill. We are talking about council housing and the effect the Bill will have on council house tenants. The ramifications of Part IV are linked to those of Part VI.
It is widely expected that the proposals contained in Part IV will have a more dramatic effect on local authority housing services than those in Part VI will have on housing revenue finance. Local authority capital expenditure is still largely directed at housing provision, renovation, repair and maintenance. The main areas of expenditure of course are new house building—although that is almost down to nil—and the renovation, improvement and repair of the existing housing stock in management. By far the largest area of expenditure within the current housing investment programme relates to environmental improvements, demolition, slum clearance and energy conservation work. The whole gamut of local authorities' activities is covered.
Expenditure by local authorities in England on all those housing programmes during 1988–89 has been estimated by the Department of the Environment as £3.720 billion. Of that, less than one third—£1.150 billion—is funded by the housing investment programme. The remainder is funded by capital receipts and other forms of borrowing.
Despite asking the Government for borrowing approval to spend £6.333 billion on expanding those programmes during 1989–90, local authorities were given a housing investment programme allocation for the current year of £920 million, which is less than one-sixth of what they asked for. That was the situation despite an increasing supply of capital receipts which local authorities raise. It means, in effect, that the housing investment programme allocation is funded entirely by receipts from the right-to-buy programme; 1989–90 is the second year in which no new money has been put into local authority housing by the Government.
Despite protestations in the House, we, continue to hear bleatings from Ministers about 100,000 council properties being empty while we have homeless people. Is it any wonder, with the cuts that have taken place? I shall attempt to illustrate shortly what the Government have done to local authorities. I wish they showed the same sense of urgency when dealing with homeless people and people in bad housing as they appear to show when finding a residence for the new Leader of another place, even at the expense of one of his colleagues. I wonder what would have happened if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having been in situ for six years, had exercised his right to buy, as do people who live in other publicly-owned houses. It would have created something of a furore, would it not?
The Government see housing associations stepping into the breach and switching their resources from rehabilitation to new housing and from inner city and metropolitan areas to rural areas.
However, we have quite hard evidence from the housing associations that they do not see themselves

1471
as being able to take on that role. That is too big for them. They are prepared to act in a complementary role to the local authorities, but not on their own. However, the latest public expenditure White Paper of January 1989 (Cmnd. 609), demonstrates that even if housing associations manage to start on site, the number of approvals projected in the White Paper of 16,000 for 1988–89 and 24,000 for 1991–92 will not compensate for the dramatic reduction in local authority new homes. They range from a figure of 15,000 completions for the year, 1988–89, to only 6,000 completions for 1991–92. There has been a substantial fall in local authority housebuilding due to the situation that has been forced on local authorities by the Government.
A decade ago, local authorities in England completed 66,000 homes. At that time just over 56,000 families were officially homeless. We know that the figure is now over 120,000. While we welcome the proposal in Part IV that the Secretary of State can take into account the local authorities' ability to supplement their annual capital guidelines with capital receipts, all local authorities are concerned about the overall availability of capital resources.
The public expenditure White Paper to which I have just referred indicates a continuing downward trend in the overall availability of net capital expenditure for local authorities. Indeed, local authorities will be making a net contribution to the Exchequer through capital receipts. That was never intended when we were first persuaded to support the sale of council houses. The beneficiaries of these capital receipts can only be assumed to be housing associations or other public expenditure programmes.
These proposals must be seen in conjunction with Part VI of the Bill and the proposals in the 1986 Housing Act to encourage local authority tenants to opt for a private landlord or to have their homes taken over by housing associations. That policy objective is obviously encouraged by council tenants who suffer accommodation of a poor quality and who have to wait a long time to have essential repairs and maintenance carried out, as well as much needed environmental improvement. That is why we have long since concluded that the Government have systematically disinvested in council housing over the last decade to promote their objective of increased owner occupation, at any cost.
If anybody thinks that I am just making a political point without the support of figures, perhaps I may briefly detain the Committee by giving some figures. The first is for the first year of the Conservative Government when they took office after the last Labour Government. The housing investment programme for the GLC in 1979—the first year of the Margaret Thatcher government—was £1·356 billion. The Government were so charitable that last year they allowed the same group of people—all the London boroughs and the GLC—£327 million—less than a quarter of what they were allowed a decade ago. Ten years ago the metropolitan districts received £1·339 billion as their allocation. Last year
1472
it was £300 million. The non-metropolitan districts 10 years ago received £2·141 billion, last year it was £455 million. If we take the grand total, 10 years ago, the housing investment programmes were nearly £4 billion. They are now just over £1 billion. Still the Government say that it is the fault of the local authorities that we have a housing problem.
Since I have been privileged to be a Member of your Lordships' House, I think that there have been five changes of Ministers in this House responsible for housing. Each one has left a worse record than his predecessor. I do not particularly blame the Ministers in the House because they do not make policy.
I do not wish to go further because no doubt later on when we discuss the revenue implications of Part VI, we shall go into the matter a lot deeper. The figures which have been produced for me today, of which I had some prior inkling, indicate quite clearly that the Government have not set a priority for housing. Once again I wish that they would stop blaming other people for their own shortcomings bearing in mind the dimension of the withdrawal of resources by the Government over 10 years.
The homeless people in this country will be aware of the figures. I thought I ought to rise in support of my noble friend and colleague Lord McIntosh of Haringey to give an indication of what the issue is about and to support the amendment which he so ably moved.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): We have considered carefully the case for delaying implementation, but we have no doubt at all that the correct course is to introduce the new system alongside our other reforms in April 1990. There are three reasons for this.
First, we must look honestly at the current situation. This was something which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, started to do. He very nearly reached the point of saying what I shall say now, that the present capital control system is a crumbling ruin. It now serves the interests neither of central government nor of local authorities. It has not produced a fair distribution of capital spending power. Despite generous increases in the provision we have made for local authority capital expenditure, it has produced a steadily declining total of capital allocations. Because of the various devices that have been employed to avoid it, we have had to take remedial action on several occasions. That has not given local authorities the stability required for efficient capital planning.
The present system will not get any better. The time for shoring up the foundations has passed. As the volume of local authority capital receipts increases, there is a danger that it will collapse completely under the strain. We have recently announced a further increase in the receipts expected to be generated this year. We welcome that increase. Local authorities have followed where central government have led. They have come to realise the benefits of divesting themselves of assets that would be better managed in the private sector. The present system was not designed for such a level of receipts. Quite simply, it cannot cope.

1473
I am sure that local authorities would not welcome another year where allocations were cut because of increased receipts. They, like us, have had enough. They must surely look forward to the end of the present system. Indeed, they have indicated that to me. I must stress that the new system of capital finance will bring benefits. Not only will resources be better targeted at need, but also central government will be stepping back from the control of local authority capital expenditure. It has been said that it is absurd to try to control capital expenditure annually. Those who have said that have accused the Government of trying to attempt to control gross expenditure, net expenditure and borrowing without emphasis on any particular aggregate.
The new system moves away from the annual control of local authorities' total capital expenditure. Obviously the Government have and will continue to have an interest in that expenditure as it is an important economic variable. With the greater accountability brought about by the community charge, they will be able to stand back from annual control of it. Our interest will focus instead on the kind of finance, in particular on the level of local authority borrowing.
The new system will give local authorities freedom to finance expenditure from their own revenue. This is what they have long asked for. It will also provide a sound basis for them to plan their capital programmes with confidence. Secondly, we have considered the arguments that some authorities cannot cope with the change to the new system and the uncertainty it brings. Quite frankly, we are not convinced by that. Any change involves some element of adjustment and has to be planned for, but our proposals on capital finance were set out in detail in July 1988, nearly two years before their proposed introduction. The main principles of these proposals remain intact in this Bill.
Much has been made about the uncertainty facing authorities as regards their capital spending in 1990 to 1991. I think this can easily be overstated. Under the present system local authorities have a reasonable idea of their spending power from capital receipts for some time ahead, but they only learn of their capital allocations some three months before the start of the financial year—that is about December time—beginning in April. Under the new system we have made clear since the time of the consultation paper that we propose that local authorities should be able to spend from receipts.
Local authorities should be able to work out the implications of these proposals for their capital programmes. For 1990 to 1991 we intend they should receive their credit approvals at roughly the same time as they would have received their allocations. Under the new system they will have the benefit of receiving provisional credit approvals for two further years ahead. That is something that local authorities have been pressing for for some considerable time. Having said that, we shall do all we can to aid authorities in their preparation for the new system. We have already made clear our intention to issue the necessary regulations and guidance as swiftly as possible.
1474
I must stress that there is nothing sinister in the regulation making powers in Part IV. They are necessary for the fine tuning of the new system and for periodic adjustments to the system which may have to be made. Indeed, wherever possible, we have already indicated how we intend to use regulation making powers. Examples are the treatment of leased assets and the application of the reducing balance method of debt redemption. Work on formulating the regulations is in hand. We are conscious of the need to publish draft regulations for consultation with local authorities as soon as possible. We hope to do that in the early autumn. In addition, the department has taken part in seminars on the new system which have been attended by local authority financial officers. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that local authorities have not been told about the new system. I beg to differ with the noble Lord. I think it was only Monday of this week when I chaired the housing consultative council at which papers on how the new system would work were discussed in some considerable detail.
While I am on the matter of regulations, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would be disappointed if I did not rise to the bait he threw me about the number of regulation and order making powers in this Bill. As the noble Lord will appreciate, such powers greatly add to the flexibility of the legislation. Flexibility is something which, in, most other contexts, Ministers are constantly being urged to adopt. Moreover, many of the powers will be used to provide concessions which the Government are always being pressed to allow.
However, my main point is simply that subordinate legislation and primary legislation commonly go together. There is nothing new in the presence in this Bill of numerous regulation making powers, nor is it a practice that was introduced by this Government. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will be only too well aware of what his party has done. Reference has just been made to the community land legislation, that great flagship that sailed to disaster. It contained 19 regulation and order making powers. We could go back a little further to the Transport Act 1968. It was of much the same length and it contained 53 regulation and order making powers. So the party of the noble Lord is well aware of the need for them.
Our third and final reason is the importance of ensuring that our reforms of local government finance proceed in tandem. They are inexorably interlinked. The community charge enables us to allow local authorities to spend whatever level of capital expenditure they wish to finance from revenue. Why should they not have that freedom in 1990 to 1991? The new rules on housing finance interlink with our proposals on capitalisation in Part IV. We have been discussing with the local authority associations the new capital finance needs assessment on the basis of the new system. At the end of the day, in our view, it would lead to more disruption and more transitional problems if we left this important piece of the local government jigsaw out of place for 1990 to 1991.
I hope the Committee will bear with me if I answer some of the points that have been made by the noble

1475
Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Dean of Beswick. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised the question of the housing investment programme and its importance. Part IV of the Bill which we are discussing now is not about the level of capital expenditure. That is a matter for the Government's expenditure plans. Part IV is about ensuring an efficient distribution of the resources available.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he explain when he replies why, when we are continually told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is awash with money, we have had such a tremendous cut in the money available for housing in the public sector? Can the Minister tell us the reason for that?
The Earl of Caithness: I think that point has been covered in detail before and will doubtless be covered when we come to Part VI of the Bill. I must confess to a feeling of slight disappointment in that I shall probably not be available to discuss Part VI of the Bill with the noble Lord. However, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, raises the important point of housing expenditure funded from allocations. This is precisely what Part IV will tackle. It will enable us to increase the proportion of expenditure allocated through credit approvals. That is to be welcomed.
The noble Lord went on to give some figures about the London HIP allocations which he claimed had been cut to a quarter of their former levels. He is referring to the HIP allocations, but I wonder whether he has ignored the enormous spending power that is available from capital receipts, which have increased quite substantially.
I wish to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who also talked about investment in housing stock being inadequate. He tried to compare this with the investment in water in this country. I shall not trade figures about investment in housing with the noble Lord. He knows only too well that in the Labour Party's term of office it declined by 45 per cent. If the rate of decline had continued, we would not have had any local authority housing by the mid-I 980s. With respect, trying to compare housing investment with water investment is like trying to compare apples and pears. Water was predominantly local authority dominated before the water authorities took over. That situation covered 75 per cent. of the drinking water going to people's homes. The other 25 per cent. was already in private sector hands with the water companies. The water authorities dealt with 100 per cent. of the dirty water problem.
As regards housing, 67 per cent. of the people of this country live in houses which are owner occupied. That shows what a huge importance and success private enterprise and private finance have had in this sphere. When the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Dean of Beswick, talk about housing, they are talking about housing which is not in the owner occupied sector. Some of the housing they are referring to is private rented housing and
1476
some of it is under the control of housing associations. As the Committee knows, housing associations have enjoyed a huge expansion. They will continue to expand in the next few years, increasing the subsidised housing sector.
I shall now return to the amendment. We are quite clear that the time for change is now. We in local government have lived with the present capital control system long enough. We have spent several years discussing what should replace it. Now we have the opportunity to put a sensible system in its place—a controller borrowing system.
That is what local authorities have always wanted. It meets the requirements of both central and local government and it fits in with the rest of the reforms that we are introducing.
Lord Hylton: At the risk of prolonging the debate, I wish to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on becoming an economic Minister. Perhaps I may ask him, wearing both his former hat and his present hat, whether under the new system there will be incentives to local authorities to manage their housing stock as efficiently as possible. When I say incentives I mean both in capital spending and in capital borrowing. Perhaps I may go on to ask him why it is necessary to control so closely and to introduce fine tuning of local authority borrowing at a time when there are no controls, other than interest rates, on private borrowing for instant consumption.
The Earl of Caithness: I sincerely hope that local authorities will continue to improve their management performance. That is one of the reasons why we shall bring in management performance indicators. There is more to it than, as the noble Lord has suggested, capital expenditure and capital improvements; there is renovation and management. For the ADC now to say that it must treat its tenants as customers only goes to show that the Housing Act last year and this Bill are pushing local authorities, housing associations and private sector landlords in the direction of better performance.
Lord Ross of Newport: Before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps he could clarify one point. He used the term "subsidised housing sector". He was obviously referring to the public sector and local authority housing. I think he would agree that the private sector is also subsidised through mortgage tax relief. It is, is it not?
The Earl of Caithness: There is mortgage tax relief. I also mentioned housing associations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is a pleasure to welcome the Paymaster General to the Bench on this Bill. In the negotiations with central government to which I have become accustomed over the years there is always at one end of the table a person from the Treasury. He tends in the end to have the say on what is decided, whether or not departmental officials want it. Negotiations depend almost entirely on what the Treasury official decides. We have here

1477
the Treasury official sitting in the middle of the Bench. It would be nice to think that as the Bill proceeds to housing issues in October we should have the pleasure of hearing him arguing with himself about the proper level of resources that should be available for public housing. However, I gather from what the noble Earl said that that will not be the case. I am sorry about that, though I congratulate him on his translation to his new position.
In his last day as housing Minister, if I may put it that way, he has not convinced me, and I do not think that he will have convinced other Members of the Committee, that the proposals in this part of the Bill are so well thought out and so responsible in their approach, particularly to housing finance, that they deserve the support of the Committee. Still less do they deserve to be put into effect on 1st April 1990, less than six months after the Bill ultimately gains Royal Assent.
I do not want to anticipate the many defects that we see in this part of the Bill. Indeed, I shall not because they are set out in the amendments that we have tabled to this part of the Bill. They are very numerous. They are extremely serious. They affect the procedures for capital expenditure, and that is serious enough, but more importantly they affect the ability of local authorities to undertake the tasks, particularly in relation to housing, which their electors and the people in their neighbourhoods expect of them. I have not been convinced, and I do not believe that the Committee will have been convinced, that the case for introducing them in such a hurry after such a period of gestation has been adequately made out. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
5.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 131L) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 108.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Airedale, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ardwick, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Barnett, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Blease, L.

Jeger, B.

Bottomley, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Broadbridge, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kirkhill, L.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

McGregor of Durris, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ennals, L.

McNair, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Fitt, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Foot, L.

Mulley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Galpern, L.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Grey, E.

Phillips, B.

Grimond, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hampton, L.

Rea, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Seear, B.

1478

Sefton of Garston, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Serota, B.

Underhill, L.

Shepherd, L.

Walston, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

White, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Joseph, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Auckland, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Balfour, E.

Layton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McFadzean, L.

Blyth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Borthwick, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Brookes, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caldecote, V.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Moyne, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Coleraine, L.

Nelson, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Newall, L.

Colwyn, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cox, B.

Orkney, E.

Craigavon, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Cross, V.

Prior, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pym, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Quinton, L.

Donegall, M.

Reay, L.

Dulverton, L.

Renton, L.

Dundee, E.

Renwick, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Richardson, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Saint Oswald L.

Elton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fortescue, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shannon, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sharples, B.

Greenway, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Haig, E.

Strange, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hanson, L.

Teynham, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Torphichen, L.

Henley, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Holderness, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Westbury, L.

Hooper, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Windlesham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 131J:
Page 44, line 33, leave out from ("Executive") to end of line 34 and insert ("and any company which, in accordance with that Part, is either under the control or for the time being subject to the influence of such an Executive").
The noble Lord said: These are technical amendments which mirror an amendment made to Part V of the Bill at Committee stage in another place. The amendments ensure that companies

1479
under the control or influence of passenger transport executives may be made subject to Part IV of the Bill. Hence the new capital finance regime will apply to the passenger transport executive authorities' companies as well as to other companies in the local authority sector. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: The Committee may know that I am the President of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I mention that merely to indicate that the passenger transport executives are associated with the AMA and we therefore know something of what they are thinking.
When the Minister says that these are just technical amendments, I can asure him that that is not how the PTEs regard them. Is it the Government's intention that all PTE companies shall be caught by the amendments or will there be provision to grant individual exemptions? The PTEs have a particular case in mind. That is the case of National Transport Tokens Limited. That is a concern in which all PTEs have shares, and therefore an interest, but which is a self-standing company. It would be helpful to know what the Government's intention is, and whether there would be an exemption for an organisation such as that.
This also appears to be the opportunity to clarify exactly how the controls in Parts IV and V of the Bill will apply to public bus and public airport companies which are to all intents and purposes commercial concerns. The PTEs are concerned with aspects of the Bill as it affects them.
I have before me a copy of a letter sent from the Department of the Environment headed:
"Local Authority Interests in Companies: Consultation Paper".
That letter was sent to the managing director or company secretary of public transport and public airport companies and to the chief executive of the relevant authorities. It was dated 16th August 1988. When I quote from the letter, the Committee will appreciate why I raise the point. The department states that it recognises that a number of public transport companies and public airport companies have expressed concern about the proposals set out in the consultation paper to which I referred.
After making it clear that, regarding public transport and public airport companies, a wide ranging set of provisions are laid down in the Transport Act 1985 and the Airports Act 1986, the department makes a quite definite statement which I shall quote. It states:
"There is no intention, as a result of the proposals in the consultation paper, of changing the main lines of these existing arrangements—particularly as concerns the financial arrangements and public access to papers and meetings".
I shall quote the next sentence because it obviously causes some concern to the PTEs. It states:
"Some details may, nevertheless, need rethinking in the light of any decisions that are taken as a result of the consultation paper".
It is then made clear that that letter from the Deprtment of the Environment was sent with the agreement of the Department of Transport. That was 12 months ago. Although the Minister says that
1480
these are merely technical amendments, the PTEs regard them as more than that. We should like the Minister to confirm that the assurance laid down in the letter still holds firm, and that any rethinking has not changed the situation as laid down in the letter. If it changes the situation, the amendments are far from being merely technical amendments. They will have changed an assurance given to public transport and public airport companies 12 months ago. Some assurance on that matter is therefore requested.
Lord Hesketh: The passenger transport executives are part of the local authority sector and the rules should treat them accordingly. It therefore follows that we need to consider the position of companies which are extensions of passenger transport executives in the same light as companies which are extensions of local authorities. The PTEs have the same potential to use companies to avoid controls to which they are subject as local authorities. To ensure that there is therefore a comprehensive and logical pattern for the whole of the local authority sector, it is necessary to bring within the system companies which are subject to the control or influence of PTEs. Airport companies' borrowing is controlled at the moment and that will remain the case.
I do not have answers to the two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, but perhaps I may give him an absolute, categoric assurance that I shall write to him immediately with the answers to those points.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 131K:
Page 4, line 36, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 39 and insert ("local authority specified or determined in accordance with the order; and, where an order so provides in relation to a local authority, that authority together with any companies and Executive concerned are in subsection (6) below referred to as members of a local authority group").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Capital purposes]:
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 131M:
Page 45, line 28, at end insert—
("(d) any other item of expenditure for capital purposes if it would be so regarded in accordance with proper practices".).
The noble Lord said: Clause 38 is concerned with the definition of expenditure for capital purposes and subsection (2) contains a number of elements in the definition of "expenditure for capital purposes". It includes:
"the acquisition, reclamation, enhancement or laying out of land … the acquisition, construction, preparation, enhancement or replacement of roads … and the acquisition, installation or replacement of movable or immovable plant, machinery and apparatus and vehicles and vessels".
Subsection (3) seeks to define further the word "enhancement". At the end it contains the caveat that:

1481
"expenditure on the enhancement of an asset shall not be regarded as expenditure for capital purposes unless it should be so regarded in accordance with proper practices".
When I first saw that, I was distinctly puzzled because I was not familiar with the phrase "proper practices". However, Clause 63(4) defines "proper practices" for the purposes of this part of the Bill as practices:

"(a) which the authority are required to follow by virtue of any enactment; or

(b) which, whether by reference to any generally recognised published code or otherwise, are regarded as proper accounting practices to be followed in the keeping of the accounts of local authorities, either generally or of the description concerned".

It is puzzling, first, that definitions in subsection (2) should be considered as complete, with no possibility of any further aspects of capital expenditure; and secondly, that the restriction of the "proper" practices criteria should only apply to enhancement rather than to the other elements of capital expenditure. The question must arise as to why the restriction is necessary in Clause 38(3) when it is perfectly adequately contained in Clause 63(4).
We wish to see in subsection (2)—and it is the purpose of the amendment—a further opportunity to have as an additional description of expenditure regarded as being for capital purposes:
"any other item of expenditure … if it would be so regarded in accordance with proper practices."
In other words we do not propose any departure from the normally accepted local authority finance procedures but we think it is too restrictive to have paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) without any possibility of expenditure which, although proper, has not been included in the previous account.
I can give one example. There is a considerable number of items on repair and maintenance—not ad hoc repair and maintenance but planned programmes of repair and maintenance—which have been considered in the past, particularly in the housing sector, as being appropriate as capital expenditure. After all, with the decline of new house building in the public sector, one of the most urgent needs is for planned programmes of repair and maintenance of public housing which may not be enhancement and therefore may not fall within the scope of subsection (3). We shall come to the definition of the word "substantially" when we deal with the next series of amendments.
Will it now require credit approval cover and, if so, will the BCA and the SCA be increased accordingly to provide for that? On the face of it, it is surprising that the Government are attempting to define "expenditure for capital purposes" so closely. It would seem preferable to have this additional paragraph to subsection (2), at least in drafting terms, even if there is no substantive issue of which we are aware at the moment that would make it unnecessary.
I hope that the Government will feel that this is a helpful amendment rather an an obstructive one. As I said, it does not involve any departure from existing local authority accounting practices but it would make the definition more flexible and more helpful to local authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 131M would provide that expenditure would be expenditure for capital purposes if it would be so regarded under a generally recognised published code or any equivalent statement of accounting practices.
I ought to begin by drawing the Committee's attention to the definition of "proper practices" in Clause 63 on page 69 of the Bill, as did the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It will be seen there that there are two types of proper practices. The first are statutory proper practices; that is to say, those which arise by virtue of an enactment. The second are those proper practices which arise from accounting codes of practice. Understandably enough, Clause 63 provides that the statutory proper practices take precedence over the non-statutory practices.
The relevance of this definition to the amendments is as follows. Clause 38 is nothing more than a statement of proper practices as regards the capitalisation of expenditure by local authorities. It is an example of statutory proper practices and thus overrides any non-statutory proper practices. If the amendment were to be accepted, I think that there would a certain danger of a degree of circularity arising. When one was considering whether an item of expenditure fell within the new paragraph (d), one would have to ask whether it could be regarded under "proper practices" as being expenditure for capital purposes. One would then have to ask: what were the relevant proper practices? The answer to that question would be that the relevant proper practices are in Clause 38. So we would be back where we started.
I am advised that subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 38 as they now stand represent a full statement of what expenditure on tangible assets would be regarded as capital expenditure under present accounting conventions. The subsections are an attempt to codify those conventions. So the amendment would not in fact widen the definition of expenditure for capital purposes. It could well be argued that accounting conventions might change and it would come to be accepted that certain types of expenditure which do not fall within Clause 38 as it stands should be treated as proper to be capitalised. But the clause already allows for that. Subsection (5) permits the definitions to be altered by regulations.
It is for that reason that we believe that the amendment is not necessary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for that explanation. I should certainly not wish to be accused of trying to introduce circularity into the argument for the Bill. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 131N:
Page 45, line 32, leave out ("substantially").
The noble Lord said: I understand that the Committee will deal with Amendments Nos. 131N, 131P and 131Q together.
When he moved the last amendment, my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave an

1483
exposé of the intentions behind Clause 38. These three amendments are aimed at requesting the Minister to clarify, if he can, the meaning of the word "substantially" and also to ask him for a definition of "enhancement" in Clause 38(3).
Given the safeguard that expenditure on the enhancement of an asset will not be regarded as expenditure for capital purposes unless it accords with the Government's defnition of "proper practices" in Clause 63(4), the use of the term "substantially" appears to be quite unnecessarily restrictive. At the very least the Bill should either define the term "substantially" or indicate how it is to be interpreted and of course by whom. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Although by nature I am one of those people who like to see things left out of Bills, I regret to have to say that on this occasion it would not make sense to leave out these three insertions of the word "substantially".
We refer here to capital works. For example, if we merely say, "which are intended to lengthen the useful life of the asset" it might be by only a few weeks. That would be meaningless. Unless we insert the word "substantially" we might as well not have the expression in subsection (3)(a). I hope that my noble friend will resist these three amendments.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments would delete the word "substantially" in each of the three places where it occurs in subsection (3) of Clause 38. The upshot of these amendments would be that expenditure on works could be capitalised if it lengthened the life of an asset but did not do so to a substantial degree, or if it increased the value of an asset hut did not do so to a substantial degree also, or increase the extent to which the asset could be used but again did not do so to a substantial degree.
I do not dispute for a moment that it is often necessary to undertake expenditure which has these characteristics. But I would question whether such expenditure could be regarded as being of a capital nature. It was argued in another place that prompt replacement of missing slates may prevent the life of a building being substantially reduced. That is true. But it does not mean that the expenditure should be charged as capital. It should be allowed for as current costs and charged to the revenue account.
If expenditure does not substantially lengthen the life of an asset or substantially increase its value or substantially increase the extent to which it can be used, then the motivation (if I may call it that) for the expenditure is clearly not of a capital nature, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out. The nature of capital expenditure is that it should provide an enduring asset which has value, that value being measured either in terms of marketability or in terms of the use to which it can be put, or to both. It seems to me that expenditure which does not substantially address the purpose is not capital expenditure. That is why we resist the amendment of the noble Lord.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I do not wish to delay the proceedings any longer on these three amendments. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The word "substantially" is not a quantitive word and does not define anything. Very often "substantially" can be used in a relative sense. What is one comparing it with? The Minister will obviously not alter the legislation. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 131P and 131Q not moved.]
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clauses 39 to 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Borrowing limits etc.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 131R:
Page 50, line 7 leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to remove the Secretary of State's regulation-making power to regulate borrowing,
"in the interests of prudent financial management".
While the Bill introduces a new regulatory regime to determine which borrowing requirements will be introduced, it leaves open the question as to whether they may be tightened still further in the future in the interests of prudent financial management.
It appears to be a wholly unnecessary power in the light of the voluntary codes of good practice which most authorities follow at present. At the very least the Bill should define the exact nature and extent of the Secretary of State's reserve powers over local authority borrowing in order to remove the vagueness of this subsection and the uncertainty that it will introduce into the new system.
Paragraph A48 of the consultation paper on capital expenditure and finance issued by the DoE Welsh Office last July gave some indication of what the regulations could require. I wish to quote from it briefly. It states:
"The new system will also confer upon the Secretary of State a reserve power exerciseable with the consent of the Treasury to make regulations to ensure that local authorities manage their external borrowing portfolio in a prudent fashion. Regulations could, for instance require that:

(1) The ratio between the amount of each local authority short-term borrowing, ie, repayable within 12 months or at least less than 12 months notice, and their annual revenue should not exceed the prescribed level;

(2) The amount of such borrowing should not exceed the specified proportion of their total external borrowing; or,

(3) The average term of their external borrowing should not be less than a specified period".

These matters are largely covered, or likely to become covered, by voluntary codes of practice. The departments do not envisage that the powers would be used unless such codes prove ineffective. The powers will replace the relevant provisions of the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act 1946 and the Control of Borrowing Order 1958. We consider that the Bill should also contain a commitment that such powers would not be used unless voluntary codes in the first instance proved ineffective. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment would delete the power of the Secretary of State in the interests of prudent financial management to make regulations to regulate borrowing by local authorities. The primary question raised by the amendment is not whether the Government should have the power to regulate local authority borrowing in the interests of prudent financial management. It is whether they should continue to have that power. The secondary question is whether that power should be contained in a not very well-known Act sponsored by the Treasury or whether it should be contained in local government finance legislation alongside the other provisions dealing with local authority borrowing and capital finance.
At present all local authority borrowing is potentially subject to regulation by the Treasury under the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act 1946. That Act is now a reserve power. Successively wider general consents have been given and it no longer regulates local authority borrowing on a day-to-day basis. But it has been there and could have been used if the need had arisen to ensure that local authorities borrowed in a prudential fashion.
It would be a heroic understatement if I were to say that not every feature of this Bill is immediately apparent at first glance. In connection with the present amendment I draw the Committee's attention to Part I of Schedule 11, which is the repeal schedule. On page 216, in line 36, there is an entry relating to the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act 1946. The substance of that entry is that local authority borrowing would in future not be the subject of special Treasury control.
The question is whether those controls should be replaced. There is no intention on the part of the Government to use Clause 42(2) in circumstances where voluntary codes of practice are enforced and are being complied with. But the reserve power should be available. That is the best guarantee that the voluntary codes of practice will be produced and that they will be observed. That is why we resist this amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the Minister for drawing our attention to the provisions of Schedule 11. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 131S:
Page 50, line 17, at end insert—
("(4A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the temporary use by a local authority for a purpose other than that of the fund in question of money forming part of such a superannuation fund or trust fund as is referred to in paragraph (h) or paragraph (i) of subsection (2) of section 40 above shall be treated as borrowing.").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend, in moving Amendment No. 131S I speak also to Amendments Nos. 131ZZL, 134ZD, 134D, 134N, 134P and 134Y. These are technical amendments concerning superannuation funds and charitable funds of which the local authority is a trustee.
They serve two purposes. First, they ensure that financial transactions of the authority on behalf of
1486
these funds are outside the controls imposed on the authority's own finances by Part IV. Secondly, they provide that, for the purposes of the aggregate credit limit, the money of these funds is treated as not being money of the local authority.
It may help Members of the Committee if I explain how these purposes are achieved in a little more detail. First, perhaps we may look at the transactions of superannuation funds and charitable trust funds of which the authority is a trustee. The Bill already provides, at Clause 40(2)(h) and (i), that expenditure on behalf of these funds is not controlled by Part IV. That clause exempts such expenditure from the requirement that expenditure should be charged to a revenue account.
Amendments Nos. 131ZZL and 134ZD provide an equivalent exemption for capital receipts of the funds. Amendment No. 131ZZL provides that capital receipts of superannuation funds are not capital receipts for the purpose of Part IV. Amendment No. 134ZD extends the exemption from the debt redemption provisions which already existed for disposal of assets held for charitable purposes to all capital receipts of a charitable fund of which the authority is a trustee.
The second purpose of the amendments is to treat the funds as being separate from the local authority for the purpose of the aggregate credit limit. Technically the money held by the local authority on behalf of superannuation and charitable trust funds is money of the local authority. But if this money is to be outside the controls of Part IV, then for the purposes of the aggregate credit limit imposed by Part IV it should be treated as being separate from the local authority.
Aggregate credit limit is the limit on the authority's outstanding borrowing plus the cost of its credit arrangements. Thus Amendments Nos. 131S and 134Y provide that if an authority makes temporary use of or borrows money from that supperannuation fund or charitable trust fund, that counts as borrowing against its aggregate credit limit. Amendments Nos. 134D, 134N and 134P provide that cash and approved investments which an authority holds on behalf of these funds, unlike cash and approved investments held for its own purposes, do not add to an authority's permitted aggregate credit limit. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: First, I should like to offer my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Arran on the new appointment he has been given in the Government, which he so richly deserves. It is rather sad for me to have to express a little doubt about the amendment which he has moved and those which are grouped with it. I am not sure that it is sound in principle, whatever has happened in the past, for the trustees of a superannuation fund or of a trust fund to be allowed to use that fund, presumably for purposes which have nothing to do with the superannuation or the trust but for the purpose of the local authority. Certainly if the trustees of any other fund were to use the money for a purpose which was not within the objects of the superannuation or the trust fund, they would be in for a good deal of trouble.

1487
Although I tried, when my noble friend referred to the other amendments grouped with it, to follow the implications of the other amendments, they did not answer the kind of queries which arose in my mind. For example, will interest have to be paid by the local authority to the superannuation or trust fund of which the authority is a trustee? If interest has to be paid, at what rate will it be paid or how will it be determined? Perhaps the Government have good reasons. They may even be following precedent, but on the face of it I find Amendment No. 131S very difficult. The amendments that are grouped with it do not allay my fears. Although I expect that we shall pass this amendment, I should be very grateful to my noble friend, if he is able to do so at this short notice, if he could allay my fears and in particular say whether interest will be paid and how the interest rates will be determined.
The Earl of Arran: I warmly thank my noble friend for his very generous comments upon my new appointment. At the same time, he raises extremely tricky points upon a particularly technical and complicated amendment. I shall do my best in a short time to see whether I can help him on the several matters he has raised.
Interest will normally be required by the law governing charitable trusts. My noble friend's next point concerned superannuation trustees. There are no trustees for superannuation. It is money of the authority for particular purposes, the use of which is controlled by the superannuation regulations.
Finally, the amendment gives no power to use this money other than those which already exist. If, however, having read my noble friend's questions again carefully in Hansard I find that I have not answered them fully or sufficiently explicitly, I shall write to him.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me those answers at short notice. Although I am a lawyer I am not always impressed by precedent. I do not find that the precedent in this case is a very happy one, bearing in mind that all of us in our experience have found that local authorities have sometimes overspent their revenue. The tendency to dip into superannuation funds or other trust funds to which they themselves admittedly have contributed is not one which I find very inviting. However, I do not believe that we can pursue this matter further now. I certainly do not wish to obstruct my noble friend in view of his valiant attempt to justify what he has moved.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am sure that the noble Lord will accept my view, as one who once chaired meetings of a superannuation fund which was invested only with the greatest care through the advice of City experts, that in 90 or even 99 per cent. of cases supernnuation funds of county councils and other authorities are run very carefully indeed. I do not believe that he wishes to imply anything less than that. There might have been one or two bad examples, but I do not know of them.
Lord Renton: I am not alleging that there has in the past been any kind of frequent breach of the obviously necessary obligations which arise. All I am saying is that I doubt whether it is necessary or desirable for us to give power to perpetuate the practice which has gone on in the past.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [The authority's own limits]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 131T:
Page 50, line 46, after "or" insert—
("in so far as it applies to the discharge of functions by officers".).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to permit delegation to a committee of the council to vary borrowing limits. Clause 43 requires local authorities to determine before the beginning of a financial year a limit on borrowing. The limit can be varied after the beginning of the financial year, but only by the authority itself, and that means the full council. Subsection (4) prevents this power to vary the limit from being discharged by a committee of the council or the officers.
It should not be argued that a power of delegation to officers should be retained. The Government may cite the recent activities of councils in respect of interest rate swaps and so on. These are very delicate matters. It seems sensible to me to retain the power of delegation to committees of the council because authorities may have to respond quickly to changes in interest rates. The delay caused by the requirement to convene a full council meeting may prevent the authority from rearranging its loan portfolio, with adverse financial consequences.
This is particularly important in respect of the requirements in Clause 43(1)(c) for the authority to set limits on external borrowing, which is at fixed rather than variable rates of interest. As an example of the over-restrictive nature of this provision, I point out the recent upward movement in interest rates. The Committee will not need me to remind it, and painfully the Government will not need to be reminded, that there have been nine increases in interest rates since the autumn of 1988.
Whenever interest rates increase or decrease councils will wish to examine a proportion of borrowing at fixed or variable interest rates in order to minimise revenue costs. That requires an immediate response. Other financial institutions have more freedom. We know that millions and billions of pounds change hands when interest rates change.
It is difficult to see how we can minimise the revenue costs if it cannot be achieved by flexibility. In order to avoid convening meetings of the full council to vary borrowing limits and so forth, after the beginning of the financial year the authority may draw the initial parameters so wide as to make them virtually meaningless. I am sure that the Minister does not want that. He wants sensible, prudent and well-drawn boundaries. Borrowing limits must be revised each time supplementary credit approvals

1489
are given. That may be several times in a year. It is unrealistic to expect a full council meeting to be convened to revise full borrowing limits each time SCAs are issued.
I believe that the amendment is sensible. More than once the Government have talked of the flexibility that they have built into the regulations. I believe that the proposed flexibility is sensible and that, without it councils will be punished, the public will be penalised financially and the result will not be in the best interests of the Government's overall management of the economy. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: Under the present legislation, the function of borrowing must be exercised by the full council. That function cannot be delegated to a committee or a sub-committee, let alone to an officer. I do not think that there is any dispute that this is quite unrealistic in present circumstances. In practice, the tactical decisions about borrowing are taken by officers. What Clause 43 seeks to establish is a division of functions between the full council on the one hand and, on the other, committees, sub-committees and officers, which is sensible in present circumstances.
The clause as it stands requires three limits to be set by the full council before the beginning of each year. The amendment would permit a committee or a sub-committee, but not an officer, to vary those limits.
There are various existing statutory functions which may be discharged only by the full council. In particular, a precept may be issued only by the full council of a precepting authority such as a county council. And only the full council will be able to set a community charge. Without exception, in so far as an existing statutory function can only be discharged by the full council, then any power to vary can again be exercised only by the full council. Thus a substitute precept can be issued only by the full council. Likewise a substitute community charge can be set only by the full council of the charging authority.
So far as the existing legislation is concerned, what is done by the full council can be varied only by the full council. I see no reason why it should be any different as regards the setting of borrowing limits.
The limits originally set under Clause 43 will have contained a margin for safety. There is nothing to prevent a council from including such a margin and it would be surprising if one were not included. Indeed, when setting their community charges or precepts, local authorities are required to allow for contingencies. While there is no specific statutory requirement, authorities ought to do the same when making their plans for the forthcoming year for capital expenditure.
If a local authority finds that it can no longer stay within the limits that it has set itself, then it must be for one or more of the following reasons. First, that the estimates before the authority when the limits were set were seriously in error. Secondly, that there have been substantial changes in its capital programme. Thirdly, that its capital receipts or other
1490
revenues have fallen off seriously. If this is the case, then the consequence ought to be that the matter is drawn to the attention of the full council. It is a question of responsibility and that is the reason why we resist the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am disappointed in the Minister's reply. I agree that some matters ought not to be capable of being varied from one period to another. The Minister gave good illustrations, but can he address himself to mine? I referred to a situation in which there had been freed borrowing by the council with a need to react to the forces of the market so favoured and loved by the Minister and his colleagues.
If other borrowers or lenders can react immediately—within seconds on the telephone—can the Minister say why the consequences of being unable to act as prudently and quickly should fall upon councils? Can the Minister say why councils should not be able to protect their financial interests? I am not talking about using money for speculative or reckless purposes. I am talking about managing and protecting the funds of the council—the money of the ratepayers, a phrase so loved by the Minister.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord's suggestion indicates that a local authority will have a vast amount of proportion and a single length of debt. In 1975 40 per cent. of local authorities' debt was in short-term securities, and that provided a great problem. That situation has changed. I gave examples of good and prudent housekeeping and said that we feel that councils are responsible for carrying out their responsibilities. Councils are able constantly to have meetings and we believe that the responsibility rests in the proper place.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister blithely says that councils are constantly having meetings. He is inviting the local authority world to take on board with his approval the suggestion that, where they are obliged to seek approval before and in anticipation of a need to exercise their stewardship over funds, they must have full council meetings to give that approval. They will look askance upon that suggestion. They do not wish needlessly to call meetings.
I am trying to avoid the issue becoming part of the football match which at times develops between the Front Benches. We are talking about councils having one hand tied behind their backs while doing their proper job in looking after funds.
Of course I shall not press the amendment but it has the approval of local authorities. They do not want the matters to be delegated to councillors because the Minister will say that the provision could be used recklessly or fecklessly. We are talking about proper officers who are responsible and whose professional integrity has not been impugned.
The Minister insists that borrowing limits must be set at the beginning of a period. Does he understand that, in order to try to encompass every possibility, those limits will be set widely? Does the Minister intend to limit the limits? Does he intend

1491
to interfere? If a council decides, "We are not going to put up with this nonsense of having meetings two or three times a week. We shall set our borrowing powers sufficiently wide to enable us to take advantage of moves to avoid doing that", is there a limit to that?
Lord Hesketh: First, as I pointed out in my initial remarks, the council should set a limit which allows for day-to-day contingencies. That will be the level of good management that we expect from local authorities. Secondly, the answer is, no, there will not be limits on the limit.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am now satisfied in respect of that matter. The Minister is saying that when councils set those limits they should be set reasonably, prudently and in the light of experience. However, the Minister has also said that if they do not set wide enough limits, then they will be obliged to call more frequent council meetings. I suspect that in the future the Minister or his successors will be told that councils will set their limits wide enough to avoid that, because by and large councils do not like meetings purely for the sake of rubber stamping. However, I am grateful to the Minister for his attempts to be helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clauses 44 and 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Credit arrangements]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 131TA:
Page 52, line 29, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to delete paragraph (a) from Clause 46.
The purpose of the amendment is to exclude from the definition of credit arrangements acquisitions of land and goods under leasing contracts. As in the case of many other amendments, this amendment is designed so that the Minister can help those outside the Committee in trying to understand the raison d'etre for the clause.
Clause 46 includes within the definition of credit arrangements transactions whereby the local authority becomes the lessee of land and goods. However, Clause 46(5) allows the Secretary of State to exclude certain types of leases from the definition of credit arrangements. I want the Minister to say what types of leases will be excluded. This is very much a case of lease said, soonest mended! I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that.
Under the present system, a distinction is made between operating and finance leases. Assets acquired under operating leases do not score as prescribed expenditure. The conditions which must apply for a lease to be an operating lease are set out in the Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Amendment) Regulations 1987. Will that definition be carried through into the new system?
Prior to October 1988, the value of leases of land and building was excluded from prescribed expenditure if the period of the lease was less than 20 years. This was reduced to three years by the Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1988. I understand that local government organisations-that is, councils and associations—have made representations to Government that short leases—that is, leases fewer than 20 years—should not score as prescribed expenditure under the present system nor as credit arrangements under the new system. This is argued for on the basis that short property leases are more akin to revenue rather than capital expenditure. Will all property leases over three years count as credit arrangements under the new system and therefore require credit approval cover, and will they be caught by the provisions under Clause 46? I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The concept of the credit arrangement is of prime importance in the new system, and I hope that Members of the Committee will bear with me while I explain the rationale behind it. We start from the position that borrowing, and transactions which have the same economic effect as borrowing, should be controlled. Credit arrangements are, in simple terms, transactions which, although not borrowing in law, have the same economic effect. For example, an authority might, on the one hand, decide to borrow £100,000 to buy the freehold of a building. It might then make annual loan repayments of £5,000. On the other hand, it might take a long lease on a building at a rack rent of £5,000 per annum. The legal definition of the transactions is not the same but the economic effect is clearly similar. In both cases the authority gets possession of a new building but pays for it over a period of time which is equal to or less than the life of the asset.
A lease of the sort I have described is called a finance lease. It is called a finance lease precisely because it is a conventional way of financing the purchase of an asset. There is nothing wrong with it. It is perfectly acceptable and respectable. But it is just the same as borrowing for the purchase of the asset. Such transactions should, and need, to be regulated by the new system.
To do otherwise would undermine the system. Past experience has shown that when some leases are outside the system of capital control, there has been an incentive for local authorities to enter them. For example, under the present system finance leasing of plant and machinery and medium term leases of land mushroomed to such an extent that we had to bring them within the system. It cannot be right that the effect of the capital finance system, rather than what makes most economic sense, should dictate local authority financing arrangements.
The case for treating leases as credit arrangements is very strong. There is some scope for some exceptions for which we shall make provision. But in general where a local authority takes a long lease of an asset, it is entering into a transaction very similar to borrowing. That is why leasing has been included in prescribed expenditure under the present

1493
system and indeed why it has to be regulated in the new system. With the treatment of leases which we propose local authorities will be left free to choose between leasing and purchase on sensible financial grounds. This amendment which was so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, would prevent that. I suggest to the Committee that that would be very detrimental.
Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked what exemptions we had in mind.
There will be two broad exemptions. We propose to provide these through regulations under the power in this clause. First, operating leases of equipment, plant, vehicles and the like will not be credit arrangements. Very broadly, an operating lease, in contrast to a finance lease, is where the lessee does not take on the risks and benefits of owning the asset. The lease period will not be for the major part of the useful life of the asset and at the end of lease the asset will revert to the lessor. We exempt operating leases from prescribed expenditure in the existing capital control system and I would expect the exemption in the new system to be similar to that used in the present system.
The other main exemption, which is of more concern to the noble Lord, will be short term leases of land and buildings. By short term I mean fewer than three years, the same as in the present system. Members of the Committee will probably be aware that the limit in the present system has been three years only since last March. Before that it was 20 years. The reason for the change provides a salutary example of the need to treat leasing in the same way as borrowing.
The 20 year limit on leases of land applied from the start of the present system in 1981. It worked reasonably well at first. But a few years ago shorter leases started to proliferate. There was no new economic justification for such deals, no reason for suddenly taking out lease deals on parking meters, for lease/leaseback deals on abattoirs or town halls, for complicated property deals with authorities entering into one way options which everyone knew would be called, or—I should say—there was no economically justifiable reason. No, there was only one reason for these deals: that was to avoid capital controls.
So we must ensure a level playing field between leasing and borrowing in the new system. We shall, as I said, keep the three year limit. But we intend to deal with an anomaly that has resulted from the reduction in the limit. At present whenever an authority leases land for more than three years, it is treated as paying the full market value of the land. In the new system we intend to have a smoother transition from short to long term leases of land. A lease of fewer than three years will not, as I said, be a credit arrangement. A lease of more than 20 years will be a credit arrangement and will require credit cover equal to the full market value of the land. Leases in between three and 20 years will also be credit arrangements. But the amount of credit cover required will be calculated on a sliding scale and will only equal the full value of the land for a lease of 20 years. I hope I have answered the points about which the noble Lord is concerned.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am very grateful indeed because the Minister obviously anticipated the need to give a lengthy discourse. He also appreciated the value which people outside this Committee will attach to what he said. That sounds to me eminently sensible in the light of experience. I know that he will accept that his words need to be read and studied by those outside the Committee.
I had framed a number of questions in my mind, but I think the Minister has been very fair and understanding about the problems of local government and the problem of treasurers in ensuring that they give correct financial advice to their councils. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, although I may wish to return to the matter on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 47 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Balfour: I wish to raise a question on this clause as regards the formula used. I trust that it is the Government's intention that "n" is a power and not a multiple. If it is a power and "n" is three years, the reduction in the value of "x" would be very much less than if it were a multiple. On the other hand, if "n" is a multiple, it would normally be written before the brackets. I wish to make certain that it is intended that "n" is a power.
The Earl of Caithness: I am happy to confirm to my noble friend that in Clause 47 "n" is meant to be a power. I shall look at the warding and the formula to see whether it can be made absolutely clear since he has raised this doubt.
The Earl of Balfour: I am most grateful.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clauses 48 and 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Transitional credit arrangements]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 131U:
Page 58, line 6, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move this amendment and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 131V. These are technical amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 131V.
Page 58, line 12, leave out from ("works") to end of line 14 and insert ("which, in whole or in part, were carried out before 1st April 1990 and in relation to which, by reason only of regulations under subsection (7) of section 80A of that Act (payment for works), subsection (1) of that section did not apply or, to the extent that the works were carried out on or after that date, would not have applied if they had been carried out before that date.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 [Basic credit approvals]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 131W:
Page 58, line 26, leave out (`beginning of") and insert ("30th November in the year preceding").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to issue credit approvals earlier than is proposed in the Bill. During the debate on this amendment in Standing Committee the Government did not concede an earlier date for the issuing of credit approvals. The Minister gave assurances that the timetable for the issuing of credit approvals would be no later than that for the issuing of capital allocations under the present system. It would seem preferable for this commitment to be put in the Bill rather than being left to the good will of Ministers, though no disrespect is directed at those who are dealing with this matter in Committee this evening. Not all Ministers might be so willing to accommodate the wishes of local government.
In essence, that is the purpose of this amendment. The proposed system of capital expenditure controls focuses on the control of expenditure financed by borrowing and the control of credit arrangements. The means by which this will be achieved is by the issuing of annual credit approvals by the Secretary of State. They will permit authorities to borrow or to enter into credit arrangements up to the level of the credit approval. I believe that we have listened to and benefited from the discussions that have taken place in the past half an hour or so on this matter.
The Bill as drafted requires the Secretary of State to issue credit approvals before the beginning of each financial year. We are saying that there should be tighter requirements on the Secretary of State to issue credit approvals well before then in order to assist authorities in their capital programme planning. Authorities are required to issue their precepts on the collection fund by 1st March. This process will need to take into account the revenue implications of capital programmes, the levels of which are dependent in part on credit approvals. This would point to the need for credit approvals to be issued well before then.
The Minister may very well say that the requirements to issue credit approvals are no different from those relating to the issue of capital allocations under the present system. One of the Government's main objectives in the new system set out in the consultation paper Capital Expenditure and Finance was that it should provide a sound basis for local authorities to plan their capital programmes with confidence. We believe that it is difficult to see how this objective is to be achieved when the Minister is empowered to issue credit approvals as late as 31st March.
Lord Hesketh: I have some sympathy with the points that the noble Lord has made. I am very much aware of the importance of a stable background against which local authorities can plan their capital programmes. That is why the Government propose
1496
to issue provisional indications of credit approvals three years ahead; and that is the crucial point. Local authorities receive no such forward indications at present. Their capital allocations for the financial year, which they receive some three to four months before the start of the year, are the first notice they receive of their resources for the year.
So the basic credit appoval in the new system will only be the final confirmation of an authority's resources for the year. It will already have had two previous provisional indications, and it will know what usable receipts it expects to have available in the year in question. What we are talking about therefore is when the final indication can be given. The finalising of anybody's annual budget is always a matter of balance. On the one hand, you want to do it as early as possible so as to aid stable planning. On the other hand, you want to be able to take into account the latest possible information when setting that budget. The Government are no exception. They have to decide on this balance when they set the annual public expenditure plans. They set their plans in the annual Autumn Statement, which normally takes place in November.
There is no getting round the fact that the final credit approvals cannot be issued before that Autumn Statement, and after the Autumn Statement one has to allow time for any appropriate decisions and discussions with local authorities about the distribution of the figures. These are the actual constraints. It is no good pretending that they do not exist. Within these constraints we firmly intend to issue credit approvals as early as possible. The Committee will no doubt ask why we do not commit ourselves to a date in the Bill.
Perhaps I may explain. I mentioned discussions with local authorities or their representatives. These will take place before credit approvals are issued. Their timing or length could not be legislated for. If we accept the amendment, we might have to say to the local authority associations on 29th November: "We are very sorry. The discussion is over. We must issue the credit approvals today".
In another place the Opposition suggested that we try to legislate for this, that we set a statutory deadline of 30th November or when consultation is finished, whichever is the later. We have considered this, but we do not think that it is sensible. Consultation can go on as long as either party wants it to go on. If you set such statutory constraints you invite both parties to prolong consultation if it suits them. So I am not convinced that it would do local authorities a great deal of good.
It is far better to rely on the good will of the parties concerned and the Government's desire to issue credit approvals as soon as possible. If Members of the Committee doubt this, let me remind them of the Department of Environment's record, which the Minister for Local Government set out in another place. In the past five years housing allocations have been issued between 8th and 19th December. Other service block allocations for which the Department of Environment is also responsible have been issued by the same date, except twice when they were delayed because consultation was still taking place. In another place the Opposition accepted that the

1497
Department of Environment's record was good. They said that the Department of Environment was good at producing the estimates on time, but they were concerned about the record of some other departments. In the new system the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales will issue the basic credit approvals. I give the Committee my assurance that they will do their utmost to maintain their previous good record. That record has been achieved without any statutory deadline for capital allocations in the present system. I do not think a statutory deadline in the new system would help to improve it. That is why we are resisting the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has convinced me of the wisdom of not pressing the amendment at this stage. I am very grateful to him for reminding us that under the three-year rolling programme one has considerable notice of what the revision is likely to be. We are really talking about the current year. That is the next financial year. I am satisfied from what he has said that there are difficulties. Also, one could very well cut off one's nose to spite one's face if one insisted on an arbitrary date and the consultations were going on.
I am grateful that the Minister rests very heavily on the value of consultations because in later amendments I shall be challenging him about the extent of consultations that he has in some other fields. But that is for another day. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): I beg to move that the Commitee do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.1 to 8 p.m.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 131X:
Page 58, line 27, after ("shall"), insert ("after consultation with the local authority associations,").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to consult the local authority associations prior to issuing credit approvals. We touched on this matter during an earlier debate. The Minister would form decisions on aggregate provisions rather than on the criteria to be adopted for the distributions of credit approvals between authorities.
Since the amendment was debated in Standing Committee the Minister for Local Government has written to the chairman of the AMA setting out his views on how the consultation process will operate under the new sysem. Essentially it proposes no change from the ad hoc arrangements which currently exist. It is unfortunate that the Government are not willing to strengthen the consultation process on need to spend. What is on offer in Mr. Gummer's letter is consultation on capital expenditure after decisions have been taken
1498
on overall levels of public expenditure provision. The Minister's letter is disappointing. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Consultation was thoroughly aired both at Committee stage and on Report in another place. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, pointed out, the Minister for Local Government undertook to give further consideration to the question of consultation. On 12th July he wrote to the chairmen of the local authority associations. He assured the local authority associations that, if they consider that there is scope or need for development of the existing opportunities for consultation, he would invite them to discuss this, in the first instance, with officials in the relevant service department.
We should not underestimate the degree of consultation which already takes place with the associations on capital matters, particularly in the forum of the capital programmes working party. That has been especially active during the development of the new system of capital finance. This consultation will continue on the details of the new system. We will be consulting on the regulations to be made under the new legislative provisions and the methods by which credit approvals are to be allocated.
We believe therefore that in the normal way the line of representation about the level of credit approvals and annual capital guidelines ought to be to Ministers and officials of the relevant service department. There may, however, be matters relating to the general level of capital expenditure implied in credit approvals and annual capital guidelines under the new system. We have no objection to the associations proposing discussion as appropriate in the Capital Programmes Working Party and the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance.
We therefore believe that no substantial change in the existing arrangements is necessary, which is why we resist the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister's reply is disappointing. He is saying that he and his colleagues and officials are willing to discuss the form of consultation with the local authorities. The authorities believe that the best way to achieve that is to have these words on the face of the Bill. What is wrong with that? It is a question of the chicken and the egg. Which comes first?
There should be freedom to have what I would call a frank exchange of views after which the Government would have a duty to lay before Parliament and the local government world their observations. However, Mr. Gummer's letter offers consultation on capital expenditure after decisions have been taken on overall levels of public expenditure provision. There is not a great deal between us. It is a question of deciding at what stage to hear the views of local government and then for the Government to allay those fears and worries or to set them in a proper context.
If the Government are serious about the matter I fail to see why they are not prepared either to accept the amendment or at least to be a little more positive. Instead, Mr. Gummer says that if the associations

1499
consider there is scope or need for development of the existing opportunities for consultation, he will invite them to discuss that, in the first instance, with officials in the relevant service department.
Lord Hesketh: We are not offering consultation after decisions. What is on offer is consultation before public expenditure survey decisions are taken. I must emphasise that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am obliged. I may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. If what the noble Lord has said, which will be read with care by those outside the Chamber, circumvents the need for the amendment, that at least will be a service. I am grateful to the Minister for that latter clarification. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 131Y:
Page 58, line 30, at beginning insert ("Except for a tolerance of 10% between financial years").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to draw attention to what seems to us to be a rather complex system of basic credit approvals and supplementary credit approvals, which will undoubtedly give rise to the shortening of BCAs and SCAs. Those of us who have to be concerned with these matters will be bored with that for years to come.
The amendment proposes to add to subsection (2) the words,
"Except for a tolerance of 10% between financial years".
It would do a great deal to improve the flexibility of the basic credit approval system and would reduce the necessity for the supplementary credit system. In the consultation paper Capital Expenditure and Finance, published in July 1988, the Government suggested that there could be flexibility in the use of credit for capital purposes by using revenue expenditure for capital purposes, by using the profit from trading activities—though I was not aware that the Government have ever accepted that municipal trading could be a source of profit—and using the proceeds from asset sales.
That is all very well, and nobody would want to reject those reasons for flexibility. However, there are still a number of difficulties in ensuring that capital expenditure is actually incurred in the year in which it is approved.
These difficulties are endemic in business life as well as in local authorities. There are difficulties in getting planning permission; there are difficulties in the performance of contractors to carry out the capital works, there are difficulties with the weather, and so on. It would not involve the provision of any more money; but it would involve a very simple measure of flexibility if the Government were to agree to include the phrase,
"Except for a tolerance of 10% between financial years",
and thus reduce the necessity for the more complex procedure of supplementary credit approvals. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The question of tolerance was aired in Committee in another place. In the existing capital control system there is what is known as 10 per cent. tolerance on capital allocations. What was intended was that an authority should be able to spend 10 per cent. more than its allocation in any year. But it would have to offset this against its allocation for either the previous or the following year. I say "was intended" because, due to a defect in the legislation, it does not quite work like that. Authorities can in fact usually spend the 10 per cent. tolerance without suffering the offset. So the effect of tolerance has simply been that we have to issue fewer allocations in the first place. Otherwise we would have a built-in overspend.
Nevertheless, I accept that in the present system there is a case for some form of tolerance on allocations. Capital expenditure requires long-term planning. It is difficult to control precisely on an annual basis. Some degree of flexibility is necessary. It prevents unnecessary wasteful spending to mop up an underspend, or costly last minute reining back of a programme to avoid an unforeseen overspend. In the present system local authorities have two main means of justifying their capital expenditure. Capital allocations is one. The prescribed proportion of their receipts is the other. There is very little flexibility on receipts spending between years, so some form of tolerance is needed on allocations.
Obviously in the new system the case for some flexibility for capital programmes is the same. But things are rather different. Local authorities will have several ways of financing their capital expenditure. The use of credit approvals is one. Revenue contributions and usable capital receipts are others. On these latter two local authorities will have complete flexibility to switch spending between years. If they raise revenue and do not spend it this year they can spend it next year, the year after or any year after that which they want to choose. The same goes for capital receipts. When an authority gets a capital receipt, it will set aside a reserved part as provision for credit liabilities. The rest of the usable capital receipt can then be spent in the year it is generated; or in any other year. This gives local authorities flexibility. Revenue contributions are currently £400 million in a year. Usable capital receipts in the first year of the new system will be some £4 billion. That is nearly £4½ billion which local authorities can switch between years. We should compare that to the tolerance available on allocations in the present system—10 per cent. of some £2½ billion, or some £250 million.
In short, we do not see a need for tolerance on credit approvals. I have to say that I am not alone in that view. Indeed, a district treasurer has written to my department saying as much. I accept that local authorities need flexibility on capital expenditure. But they will have plenty of that from revenue and receipts. The level of usable receipts may fall as time passes. But the figures I have quoted above are large and this will not alter the argument. Indeed, the flexibility from revenue contributions alone, without any capital receipts, is substantially greater than tolerance on allocations in the present system. That is why we are resisting this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that if I came to this Dispatch Box and said, in support of my case, that a district treasurer had written to me expressing concern about government proposals, I should get short shrift. An unnamed district treasurer says something which happens to be convenient to the Government; but the Minister has not told us whether 20 district treasurers or the society of district treasurers have written to the contrary.
I am telling the Minister that all the local authority associations have expressed concern about the tolerances allowed in capital expenditure. Indeed, you only need to look at underspending on capital account by local authorities last year to find proof of that fact. Underspending on capital account last year was of the horrific order of 40 per cent. That is not because there is nothing on which to spend the money; it is because the timing and the organisation of approval for capital expenditure are not adequate to meet the demands and to reflect the conditions in which capital expenditure can be undertaken.
For all the reasons which I have given, capital expenditure is not easy to predict. Indeed, to be fair to the Minister, he recognised that fact to some extent in his reply. I am only partly mollified by the suggestion that there is more flexibility when it comes to spending capital receipts, because later on in this part of the Bill there are controls on the use of capital receipts. There is of course the whole concept of reserved capital receipts which we shall tackle in later amendments this evening.
I am still less mollified by the suggestion that there is more flexibility in the use of revenue for capital purposes. Moreover, although I know that local authorities have to use revenue for capital purposes and that water authorities, for example, have virtually ceased to raise money for capital purposes-indeed, almost all of their capital expenditure recently has been from revenue—nevertheless, it is not a good business principle. Capital ought to be distinguished clearly from revenue. Further, it ought to be, as the Minister said before the dinner break, for enduring assets, and those assets ought to be paid for over the life of such assets. Therefore to have excessive reliance on revenue for that purpose is not sound finance or sound business.
I do not find the Minister's response in sum very reassuring. However, I shall read carefully what he said and consider whether to return to the matter at a later stage. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 131Z:
Page 58, line 34, leave out from ("issued") to end of line 36.
The noble Lord said: I can reassure the Minister straight away that this amendment is one which I do not propose to press to a Division. It is genuinely a search for clarfication. Subsection (3) of Clause 51 refers to the limitation of basic credit approvals by exclusion,
"from the purposes for which the approval may be used capital purposes of a description specified in the approval".
1502
An interpretation of that wording is that it means whatever the Government wish to specify. The reason that we have put down this amendment is that we want to know under what circumstances the Government intend to impose limits on credit approvals by excluding certain types of capital expenditure from the purposes for which they may be used. For example, what are the circumstances? What are the types of capital expenditure? When will they be used and how likely are they to be used? That is what we need to know in order to be able to understand and, if appropriate, approve the subsection. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Let me say at the outset that the Government understand the importance which local authorities attach to being able to determine their own priorities. That is why the Government have permitted capital allocations to be used for any service in the present capital control system and why we have distinguished between basic and supplementary credit approvals in the new system.
It may help if I explain that distinction. Basic credit approvals can be used for any capital purpose, unless the Secretary of State specifies otherwise. Each authority will receive one for each financial year. Supplementary credit approvals can be issued at any time and can only be used for the purposes specified in them.
The Government propose that most of the resources available for credit approvals should be distributed in the form of basic credit approvals. That will increase local authorities' flexibility. Taken together with authorities' freedom to use usable receipts for any capital purpose, this will mean that authorities have freedom to decide their own priorities for most of their capital budget.
Supplementary credit approvals will be issued in the sort of circumstances where special capital allocations are issued at the moment. These may cover, for example, estate action projects, coast protection schemes and urban programme expenditure. They will also be issued for law and order services, which are controlled separately at the moment but will be brought into the new system.
Turning to the purpose of the amendment, I can assure the Committee that the Government do not at present intend to exclude purposes from the scope of basic credit approvals. As I have said, we understand authorities' desire for flexibility and the fact that we are adopting basic credit approvals is proof of that.
However, it would be unwise to rule out the possibility of ever excluding anything from basic credit approvals. For example, in a case where expenditure was supported by government grant, it may be sensible in certain circumstances to provide for it through supplementary credit approvals and to exclude it from basic credit approvals. I stress that that is not our intention at present, but it would seem unwise not to have that option available.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That explanation is irrational for two reasons. The first is that the example given by the Minister—that something should be taken out of basic credit approval and used for supplementary credit approval—can be done without that phrase in subsection (3). The basic credit approval should therefore just be less than it would be if the amount involving government grant were included in it. The second reason why it seems irrational is that, apart from the one inconsequential example, the Government have not indicated the purposes for which the approval may be used.
If it were possible to specify the purposes for which the approval could be used, it should be done. We have already had in this part of the Bill a definition of "capital". We have been reminded that the Government have, by regulation, the power to change the definition of "capital". Is the Minister saying only that basic credit approvals may be limited by excluding the purposes if the purposes are not those covered by Clause 37 in which the definition of "capital expenditure" occurs? Is the phrase required only if capital expenditure is proposed which falls outwith the Clause 37 definition?
Lord Hesketh: If one wants to control grant-aided expenditure, one has to exclude it from BCAs as well as including it in the SCAs otherwise the authority could increase expenditure above its SCA by using the BCA. I know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, felt that the grant was insignificant, but we disagree.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I suppose that is an explanation of a sort of what is intended by the whole business of grant. I cannot say that I am satisfied. We shall have to consider what further amendment may be necessary to deal with the problem at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 131ZZ:
Page 58, line 42, leave out ("sums") and insert ("amounts").
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment. Following Second Reading in another place, we examined the wording of the Bill to ensure that local authorities would be able to continue the practice of internal lending under the new system of capital finance. It has always been our intention that they could.
A number of amendments were brought forward on Report in another place to make the position quite clear. Those amendments did that by changing certain references in the Bill from "sums" to "amounts". Thus they made it clear that the requirement to set aside provision for credit liabilities applied to amounts in accounts and not to the sums of money received. So there would therefore be no impediment to internal lending. Due to an oversight, the reference in Clause 51(4) to "sums" was missed. This amendment corrects that oversight. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendent No. 131ZZA:
Page 58, line 47, at end insert—
("(6) When issuing to an authority its basic credit approval for any given financial year the Secretary of State shall specify a provisional total for the authority's credit approval for each of the succeeding two financial years, indicating what allowance he intended to make for capital receipts in these years.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to secure for local authorities what I thought was now well established as the basis for the forward planning of expenditure and which the Government have accepted for themselves in their own expenditure. The Government's publication Public Expenditure Planning Total for 1991 makes provision for credit approvals for a period of three years. That is clearly desirable and necessary if government departments, like local authorities, are to have the opportunity for adequate forward planning of their expenditure.
The amendment provides that with the basic credit approval for a given financial year the Secretary of State shall specify a provisional total for the authorities' credit approval for each of the successive two financial years indicating what allowances he intended to make for capital receipts in those years.
If we go back to the consultation paper Capital Expenditure and Finance of July 1988, we find the statement that the intention is to provide a sound basis for local authorities to plan their capital programmes with confidence. The object is that the Secretary of State should specify a provisional total for the annual capital guideline. That would be the Government's view of gross capital expenditure which could be financed by means of credit approvals and useable capital receipts.
In paragraph 9.17 of the consultation paper it is said that the Secretary of State would specify a provisional total for the authorities' annual capital guideline for each of the next two following financial years. He would also indicate what allowance he intended to make for receipts for those years. Our amendment therefore reflects the wording of the July 1988 consultation paper and brings it into the credit approval procedure.
It does not seem to us sensible that there should be, either for central government or local government, a continuation of the old-fashioned way of year-on-year accounting which is so inappropriate for the planning of capital expenditure and the effective use of capital finances. If it is good enough to go into the central government finance from the year 1990–91, why is it not good enough to go into local authority finance? I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment attempts to provide that we should issue provisional basic credit approvals to local authorities for two years ahead, and that we should give indications of the extent to which we intend to take account of receipts in future years.
We announced in the consultation paper last July that we intended to give forward indications of credit approvals. It is still our firm intention to do just

1505
that. It is a major step forward in the new system. It is one of the pleas that local authorities have made most consistently in the present system. They want forward indications to help them plan their capital programmes. The Audit Commission has also argued strongly for such an approach. We have listened. That is why we came forward with the proposal last July. That is why we intend to deliver it.
In considering these amendments, it is important to be clear why we are able to offer such assurances. It is not a direct result of the new capital finance system. It is instead to do with the new planning total for public expenditure which we are also introducing from 1990–91. The difficulty with such assurances in the present system is that local authorities are interested in capital allocations; but public expenditure is planned in terms of net capital expenditure. So although we have had net expenditure plans for three years ahead, we have not known what level of allocations would be consistent with that expenditure.
It has only been possible to determine that for one year ahead when we know what spending from capital receipts and other sources is likely to be. So there is difficulty in giving such assurances on allocations when public expenditure plans do not actually contain any allocation figures for future years.
With the new planning total things will be rather different. Public expenditure will, as far as local authority capital is concerned, be measured in terms of goverment grants and credit approvals. So credit approvals will be part of the currency of public expenditure plans. As now, we shall plan public expenditure for three years ahead. So we shall have planned credit approval totals for those three years. That makes it possible to give forward indications.
Such indications are really a result of the new planning total, and not of the new capital finance system. It was never our intention to enshrine them in the legislation for the new capital finance system. We never said we would. Indeed, it would not be appropriate to do so.
It would not be appropriate because it would unnecessarily constrain the way the assurances could be calculated. We shall come shortly, at Clause 54, to discuss how credit approvals will be determined and in particular, how receipts will be taken account of. I do not want to go into that in detail now. But it is likely that credit approvals will be based on annual capital guidelines which will reflect an authority's relative need to spend and an allowance to take account of receipts. We have not yet decided whether it would be sensible to give forward indications for the credit approvals in total, or for the annual capital guidelines and receipts allowances separately. That depends to some extent on how we take account of receipts. It is something we wish to discuss with local authorities. It is something we might want to change over time if, for example, it becomes clear that it would be sensible to take account of receipts in a different way. It would not be sensible to constrain the Government's room for manoeuvre with this amendment.
1506
In short, we believe that these amendments are unnecessary and possibly harmful. We have made clear our intention to give forward indications, and that is what we shall do. We shall decide the best approach in the light of decisions about how credit approvals should be determined. That is why we urge the Committee to resist the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wonder whether the Minister was speaking to the right amendment. I only spoke to a single amendment, Amendment No. 131ZZA. I was not particularly talking about the criteria for credit approvals, which are in Amendments Nos. 131ZZB and 131ZZC, which my noble friend Lord Graham will move in a moment. If anything, it seems to me that I understated the case for my amendment because I did not make the point—for which I am grateful to the Minister—that it is the very fact of the public expenditure planning totals procedure which is to be adopted from 1990 that makes it possible for us to ask for these provisions for local authority capital finance. They make it possible for us to ask for the same opportunities for sensible forward planning which central government plan for themselves.
Our amendments say no more than is provided for in pargraph A.17 in the consultation paper. The only difference is the distinction between the ACG and the BCA. Some time earlier today the Minister referred to the possibility of confusion between net and gross capital expenditure and capital receipts. I think that the Government are in danger of tying themselves up in knots between these distinctions. Our amendment recognises the need to forecast capital receipts as well as capital expenditure. Therefore it takes account of all the possible meaningful definitions of capital expenditure.
What I really need if I am to be persuaded to withdraw the amendment is a concrete example of how the formula contained in the consultation paper, and presumably reflected in the Bill, would work in practice. It seems to us that the local authorities would have enormous difficulty in making the formula which is proposed work in practice.
What conclusions can authorities draw about their likely level of credit approvals in future years? Can we have some practical examples of how that would work? Failing that, I should have some difficulty in withdrawing the amendment because I do not fully feel that the Government have brought this proposal off the drawing board and thought about it in practical terms.
Lord Hesketh: It is because we are making plans for total credit approvals on a three-year basis in public expenditure plans that we can offer these forward indications to local authorities. However—and here is the rub—public expenditure plans are not statutory. They include variables such as the annual capital guidelines which have no statutory basis.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: But the amendment only asks for a provisional total for the authority's credit approval for the two succeeding financial years. Therefore it is not demanding a statutory basis

1507
for it. The consultation paper last year went further. It said that, when the Secretary of State came to issue the final BCAs for those years, he would not base them on lower ACGs than he had specified, nor allow for receipts to a greater extent than he had indicated. The paragraph goes on to say that:
"The Government's present intention is that the total of the provisional ACGs thus specified would be about 85 per cent. and 70 per cent. of the amount consistent with the relevant public expenditure provisions for BCAs for the two following financial years".
We are not asking for a commitment that when the final BCAs are issued they should not be based on the lower ACGs. Nor are we asking for specific percentages, as the consultation paper indicated. What we are asking is for the Bill to state clearly what appeared a year ago to be the Government's intention—that the Secretary of State should specify provisional totals. What is wrong with that?
Lord Hesketh: We stand by paragraph A.17. We never said that the indications would be enshrined in statute. That is what we said in that paragraph and it is what we say now.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Then local authorities could be forgiven for thinking that the Government do not mean what they say when such a modest amendment is put forward. If the Government stand by paragraph A.17, they ought not only to accept this amendment, they ought to accept an amendment which went further and said that the final BCAs would not be based on approved capital guidelines lower than those specified in year one.
It seems to me that the Government are retreating not only one step but two steps. They are not even accepting a very modest indication as a basis for capital planning which has already been agreed for public expenditure for central government. I hope that the Minister will be able to think about this again, because I am sorely tempted to divide the Committee on it.
Lord Hesketh: It is difficult when the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asks whether I will think about it again. The noble Lord has asked for examples of how the forward assurances would be given. This is a matter which we are still considering and we shall be consulting local authorities. It could be that we shall give local authorities an indication of a proportion of their basic credit approvals. The difficulty here is that if their expected receipts fall off we may not be able to make a corresponding adjustment. An alternative would be to give an indication as to annual capital guidelines, which would overcome this difficulty.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that the Government are groping towards an answer to the question. I shall not push the amendment any further now. We shall have to have better answers by the time we come to the Report stage. We shall have to have some indication of the justification for not including in the Bill the, in our view, essential indications which were included in the consultation paper a year ago. It is more than 12 months since
1508
the publication of the consultation paper. There was plenty of opportunity to think about the matter, plenty of opportunity to produce examples of how it would work. There was plenty of opportunity to think about the percentages which the Minister has just referred to as if they were a totally fresh idea, whereas they were actually published on 7th July 1988.
Local authorities will require that indications of the opportunities for forward planning which will be a reflection of the public expenditure planning totals from 1991 are available to them as well. They will hope that they are more realistic than the somewhat arbitrary percentages which are included in the consultation paper. I have no doubt that the Paymaster General, who will be concerned with the public expenditure planning totals for next year, will take this on board and will wish to see that local authorities have the same opportunities for rational planning as he would wish to see for central government.
With that indication that we shall not let this matter drop, and in the hope that consultation with local authorities and further thinking within the department will be fruitful, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Criteria for issuing credit approvals]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): If Amendment No. 131ZZB is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 131ZZC. I now call Amendment No. 131ZZB.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 131ZZB:
Page 59, line 23, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: If that was an offer, I happily accept it. However, I am afraid we must go through the arguments first. In moving Amendment No. 131ZZB, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 131ZZC. I believe that is the wish of the Committee.
As the Minister has sought, not wholly unsuccessfully, to convince me that there is a genuine desire to consult local authority associations on a range of matters at the appropriate time, I believe he should be sensitive and sympathetic to what this amendment seeks to do. We are asking the Minister not only to tell us what is in his mind in general, but also to tell us what makes up his mind in particular. We are asking here that the Minister takes local authorities into his confidence as regards the factors, the criteria and the reasons why various disposal decisions are made.
As the Minister knows, the present credit approval system is derived from individual government departments' views of what authorities need to spend on the services they control. The main service blocks are housing, transport, social services, education and other services. There are separate blocks for Home Office services and urban programmes.
At present, local authorities are involved in a bidding process. However, when they recieve their capital allocations they generally do not know what criteria have been adopted in setting those allocations. I want the Minister to tell us what criteria, measuring rods or yardsticks will be determined in the case of each local authority. The Minister may say that they are all taken on their merits or that there are hidden means whereby there is a blanket application to groups, sections and kinds of authorities. However, we want to hear something more than that.
The capital allocations to housing, transport, social services, education, Home Office services and urban programmes have been the subject of some criticism of the department by the Comptroller and Auditor-General over the distribution of capital allocations under the present system. The Comptroller and Auditor-General stated in the Department of the Environment document entitled Control of Local Authorities' Capital Expenditure, issued in May 1986:
"There are however certain features of the distribution procedures which indicate gaps in the extent to which they take account of the particular spending needs of individual authorities".
In this amendment we are asking that the capital allocations should be precise. I think it is also right to raise the issue of capital receipts. The Government Amendments Nos. 131ZZD and 131ZZH give us considerable cause for concern. Amendment No. 131ZZD permits the Secretary of State to take into account capital receipts which an authority,
"might reasonably be expected to have received".
So capital receipts which an authority had not actually received could be taken into account. This appears to us to give the Secretary of State carte blanche in discriminating between authorities. Will the Minister take this opportunity to tell us what "reasonably" means in this context? It would be grossly unfair if an assumption has been made which is not delivered. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 131ZZB would delete subsection (1) of Clause 53. This subsection provides that, in determining the amount of credit approvals, Ministers may have regard, subject to the provisions of this section, to such factors as appear to be appropriate.
This is a reasonable provision. It concerns the criteria for issuing credit approvals. The Secretary of State must be able to take account of the appropriate factors. If he cannot, resources will not be targeted efficiently when he issues credit approvals. This is well illustrated in the existing system. The Government are not allowed to take account of individual authorities' spending power from receipts when setting capital allocations.
Consequently, as the spending power from receipts in total has increased, it has squeezed allocations. The result has been that allocations to both receipts-rich authorities and authorities with few receipts have been cut across the board. There has been little scope for targeting because we cannot direct resources to authorities with few receipts. We
1510
do not want a similar state of affairs in the new system.
Amendment No. 131ZZC would require Ministers issuing a credit approval to consult the local authority associations. Earlier today the matter of consultation was thoroughly aired in our debate on Amendment No. 131X. I do not propose to go through it in detail again. But I would reiterate that we are firmly committed to consultation with the local authority associations. There will, for example, be opportunities for the associations to discuss the volume of allocations with the relevant service department. Capital allocations and decisions on public expenditure provision for local authority capital expenditure are made service by service. Discussions should be with the relevant department. It would be inappropriate to focus them on credit approvals. There is no need to provide for statutory consultation on capital matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, insisted that local authorities do not know what criteria have been applied in the issuing of capital allocations. Local authorities are well aware of the criteria of capital allocations. Other services' allocations are distributed by formulae proposed by the local authority associations. Housing associations' allocations are formulated by reference to the general needs index, which is the subject of consultation. Transport allocations are set on the basis of authorities' transport and policy programme submissions. We believe that this system will be successful. For the reasons I have outlined we resist the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has gone some way to explain to me why the amendments are unnecessary. I only hope that those outside the Chamber who will read the Minister's words with care will be able to relate to what he has said is happening and will happen, and that their fears will be allayed. I think the Minister should acknowledge that there is nothing more aggravating to a local authority than to be given, as it were, information as regards what it will or will not recieve, without knowing fully the reasons.
Local authorities do not need reference simply to the macro situation; they want to know why it is that another authority which appears to be in the same position has received more or less money, as the case may be. The Minister says that the reasons for that are, if not obvious, at least easy to ascertain because some of the allocations have been compiled by local authorities themselves and the reasons for them are well known. I am not at all certain that they are. I do not believe that local authorities idly produce amendments which seek information they do not need. Local authorities are not in the business of wasting the Minister's time or ours. They will obviously read what the Minister has said and it may be that at the next stage we shall raise the matter again. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 131ZZC not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 131ZZD:
Page 59, line 36, leave out ("and") and insert ("might reasonably be expected to have received or to receive or").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 131ZZD I propose to speak to Amendments Nos. 131ZZE, 131ZZF and 131ZZG.
A major objective of the new capital finance system is to enable the Government to target resources more efficiently and in a fairer way than at present. Clause 53 is crucial in meeting that objective. It concerns the criteria for issuing credit approvals.
Credit approvals will be calculated in broad terms by reference to two amounts. The first amount will be the sum of the annual capital guidelines for an authority. Those will be based on the relative need of each authority to incur capital expenditure on the services for which it is responsible. The second amount will reflect the authority's relative ability to finance that expenditure from its own capital receipts. In the jargon of the new system—and Members of the Committee who have not yet mastered the jargon have my sympathy—this second amount will be called receipts taken into account (RTIA).
The way in which receipts taken into account will operate is simple. Suppose, for example, that there are two authorities with roughly the same need to spend. The first has a great many receipts, the second has none. The second authority will receive a higher credit approval than the first. It is hard to argue against the fairness of that. The authority with fewer receipts has more need to borrow than the authority with high receipts.
I should like to clarify two points that have been the source of some confusion. First, in my example the authority with more receipts should still be able to spend more than the one with fewer receipts even though it will have a lower credit approval. It will have the spending power from its receipts, so authorities will derive benefit from generating receipts.
The second point is that the Government are very concerned to maintain that benefit and the incentive for authorities to generate receipts. That, I know, is a concern that many Members of the Committee share. That brings me to the purpose of the first three amendments we are considering here. At present Clause 53 permits the Secretary of State to take account of the receipts that it appears to him an authority has actually received or is likely to receive. This will improve targeting for the reasons I have explained. However, obviously it leads to a marginal decrease in the benefit of capital receipts to an authority. In recognition of that fact the Government have made it clear that we intend to take account of only a relatively small proportion of authorities' receipts.
We have said that in 1990–91 receipts taken into account will be some £400 million to £500 million compared with an estimated total of £4 billion of usable receipts in that year, the first year of the new system.
A better way of solving the problem of the incentive could be to adopt what I shall call a
1512
normative approach. If we take account of the receipts an authority could be expected to receive, rather than those it has actually received, then the authority retains the full benefit of its usable receipts. Every extra £1 of usable receipts it receives is an extra £1 it can spend. That is what Amendments Nos. 131ZZD to 131ZZF provide. They enable us to take account of the receipts which it appears to the Secretary of State an authority might reasonably be expected to have received or to receive.
I have outlined the principle of the first three amendments. I hope that the Committee will agree that it is a sound principle, since it is designed to increase the marginal benefit of capital receipts to an authority. What is not so straightforward is the question of how to operate this principle in practice. It involves devising a means of estimating the receipts an authority might be expected to receive. I can assure the Committee that the Government would have to be sure that we had a proper mechanism for assessing the receipts an authority could be expected to receive before we used this power. But I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that that is something that we should strive for and that it therefore makes sense to take this power.
Amendment No. 131ZZG is a technical amendment. As I said, we need to do further work to devise a method of assessing the receipts an authority might be expected to receive. So in the first year of the system at least we shall have to take account of authorities' actual receipts. Obviously the figures we have when we set credit approvals for 1990–91 in the autumn of this year will relate to capital receipts in the existing system. This amendment allows us to take account of those receipts, even though technically they may not be capital receipts for the purposes of the new system. I beg to move.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I take it that I am in order in speaking to Amendment No. 131ZZG, which has been spoken to by the Minister. In introducing the amendments the Minister did not mention specifically any moneys which might come from the European Community and in particular from European Regional Development Fund grants. Amendment No. 131ZZG mentions:
"capital receipts for the purposes of Part VIII of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980".
I speak from memory, but I am pretty sure that ERDF grants are not referred to in that Act. The amendment also mentions:
"capital receipts under section 55 below",
and they are not referred to specifically in that section.
In the Department of the Environment letter on Part IV of the Bill sent to the local authority associations on 2nd February there are two paragraphs dealing with ERDF grants. Those paragraphs acknowledge that the Government originally had "an open mind" on this issue. They indicate that strong pressure was brought to bear on the Secretary of State in an attempt to allow ERDF grants to be regarded as an additional source of

1513
spending power for authorities receiving them within the context of the new capital spending controls in this part of the Bill. It is not clear from the letter what conclusion the Secretary of State reached. That the second paragraph of the letter is, to me, a classic of obfuscation. There appears to be nothing in the Bill at present that requires him to make adequate allowance in credit approvals specifically to those local authorities on receipt of EC grants.
Paragraph A31 of the consultation paper dated 7th July 1986 published by the Department of the Environment considered the question. It recognised that it would be possible to allow EC grants:
"to be a source of both finance and spending power for local authorities receiving them".
There would appear to be a contradiction in the Government's thinking on this issue compared with the treatment of capital receipts. In relation to capital receipts the Government have acknowledged that under the present system of capital expenditure controls it is not possible to take into account the ability of individual authorities to generate receipts. The new system will allow discretion to the Secretary of State in order that he can issue higher credit approvals to those authorities without access to capital receipts. That recognises that authorities which can generate receipts are not always those with the greatest need to generate capital expenditure.
The contradiction with EC grants is that the Secretary of State will not be required to give higher credit approvals to those authorities which generate the grants. He could allocate credit approvals disregarding EC grants, and that would run contrary to the apparent desire to recognise need as the vital factor in determining approvals. I cannot understand that reluctance.
The Government approve schemes before they are submitted to Europe. If schemes are approved, that must mean surely that Ministers accept that spending is justified on the basis of need, yet authorities may find themselves in the invidious position of receiving grant approval and still not being able to carry out a scheme because of a lack of credit approval. That surely cannot be intended.
Every day we move closer to the European Community. Almost every day in this House and in another place, we hear of the need for preparation for 1992. However, there is no specific reference in the Bill or in what the Minister has said, or perhaps will say, to ERDF grants. I hope that he will give an indication about that. I look to him not only for clarification but for sympathy.
9 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I admire the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in having found—
Noble Lords: It is the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I believe that the noble Lord is a diamond. He is a gem, rough as that gem may be.
1514
I hope that the Minister will understand the anxiety and concern. This relates to the capital receipts nexus. Perhaps he will address the point that I made in respect of Amendment No. 131ZZD—a point to which he quite fairly chose not to respond when I raised it out of order during the previous debate. The amendment reads:
"might reasonably be expected to have received".
In the main, capital receipts relate to the sale of houses, although I recall that, when I served on the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill 1980—under which for the first time the instruction was given to the new towns to dispose of their assets—there were all sorts of arguments as to what the Government laid down or felt was likely to be raised by the sale. I hope that the Minister will take on board our serious concern. We do not want people to dispose of assets, sometimes at a disadvantageous time so far as concerns the market, in order to raise money.
The Minister is acting in a highly dangerous way by coming to a conclusion as to what the local authorities might reasonably be expected to receive. For the past five years, when councils have received 100 per cent., they have wanted to spend that money, but they have been restricted in their ability to do so. There have been slight easements in the most recent periods, but there have also been great difficulties. The Government now not only say, "You cannot spend 75 per cent. of what your receive", but, "We shall also take into account the possibility that you might receive some more, most of which you will not be able to spend". That is nightmare financial jiggery pokery. How can the Minister possibly lay on a local authority such an obligation? The Minister may dress it up whichever way he likes, but he is forcing authorities to sell their assets, which will in the main be housing but may very well be other things. The Government will assume that they have spent the money in order to deal with the capital receipts nexus.
I shall ask again: what does "reasonably" mean? Is it what the Minister considers "reasonable" in the context of the Treasury targets for income? Is it something about which the Government might ambitiously say, "I want to show how macho this department is by getting in as much money as I can. Every local authority will be obliged to come up to some kind of level"?
My voice seems to come and go in this debate, which is perhaps a benefit to those who do not want it to come back again. Does the Minister understand the burden of what I am saying?—namely, that there is concern in local councils that they may well be driven to dispose of their assets in order to measure up to some yardstick which the Government have set and which is grossly unfair to them?
Lord Hesketh: Like the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, perhaps I may also congratulate the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, in discovering the flexibility of the fourth Government amendment to probe the innermost workings of the ERDF.
The Bill provides that the ERDF grant should be set aside to meet credit liabilities. That is appropriate

1515
since those grants are normally paid in arrears. The local authoritiy will then have to borrow to finance the expenditure in the first place. As a result, the treatment of the total available for credit approvals will be higher than it would be if the grants directly conferred additional spending power. We are still considering whether we should allow for the distribution of ERDF expenditure when distributing credit approvals to authorities. We hope to make an announcement shortly, after the consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, is referring to the mechanism of taking account of receipts. That is what is at the heart of his question. Essentially, he is asking what would be a proper mechanism for taking account of expected receipts. I would consider a proper mechanism to be one which set an objective figure for each local authority. Not only does it need to be objective; it needs to be seen as objective. So I would expect to discuss the method with local authorities before it was adopted.
I would expect the method to be based—in part at least—on the use of a formula. Figures input to the formula would be certified or audited. The sort of things of which the formula might take account could include land and property values, an authority's stock of assets and the propensity of tenants to increase the right to buy. Such an approach needs a great deal of research—I appreciate that—but it is not impossible. The problems are similar to those involved in assessing an authority's spending needs. That is something that we manage to do, both for revenue and capital expenditure. I hope that we can do the same for receipts.
As I have said, there are great advantages in that approach if we can make it work. Let us take two authorities with the same spending need and assume that they both have a lot of surplus assets. One tries to sell the assets; the other does not. Why should the one that does not try to sell its assets be subsidised with a higher credit approval? So this is a fairer method. If we can find a way to make it work we shall do so.
The final point in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is that the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to take account of the usable part of the receipts only. In the case of council house sales, that figure is 25 per cent.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That still does not get rid of the fact that it is the Government's intention to make assumptions about the rate of dispersal of council assets. In a sense that will drive the council to dispose of assets when otherwise it may not have been inclined to do so.
If the Government say that they expect the sale of assets to realise £2 million, which means that they have to take into account £½million, then if councils do not get rid of the assets, they will be penalised. There will be a school of thought in an authority which believes that in order to escape the penalties the assets will have to be sold.
We know what the Government are after; they do not believe that a council should be the holder of assets such as housing, factories, estates and so on.
1516
They do not believe that councils should be in the business of sensibly managing the affairs of the community with which they are involved in the manner in which it has been done in the past.
I think that that view is very sad and wrong. However, we shall get no joy out of the Minister on the amendment tonight.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I was glad to hear the Minister say that the point I raised is being considered. I take it that it has been considered for some time. It seems to me that this is such an important aspect of this part of the Bill that it ought to have been considered.
I should like to ask the Minister whether it is possible for him to say when we are likely to hear the decision on the matter. I have to say with some regret that quite often we hear from the Government—not only on this Bill but on other Bills also—that they are considering a particular point which some noble Lord may have raised, but we do not always hear about the matter in good time.
Can I assume that we shall hear of the decision before the next stage of the Bill?
Lord Hesketh: I can give the noble Lord that assurance.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Thank you very much.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 131ZZE:
Page 59, line 39, at beginning insert ("In determining the amount of a credit approval").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 131ZZF:
Page 59, line 40, leave out from ("receipts") to end of line 41.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 131ZZG:
Page 60, line 6, at end insert—
("(5) In this section "capital receipts" includes sums which constitute capital receipts for the purposes of Part VIII of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, whether or not they fall to be treated as capital receipts under section 55 below.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 [Use of credit approvals by local authorities]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 131ZZH:
Page 60, line 20, after ("under") insert ("section (Effect of certain capital grants on credit approvals) below or").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 131ZZJ, 131ZZK, 134R and 134S. The amendments concern the treatment of certain government grants in support of local authorities' capital expenditure. As the Committee may recall, I trailed them at Second Reading.
The new capital finance system does not place any direct control on capital grants paid to local authorities by central government. Obviously, however, the Government themselves have to ensure that the total of capital grants which they pay to local authorities is controlled adequately. We are, after all, talking about a large sum of money here—some £1 billion annually.
In many cases the Government can adequately control the amount of grant they pay through the normal grant mechanism. This is the case, for example, with urban programme grant and transport supplementary grant where the Government approve individual projects. But in other cases local authorities have considerable influence over the amount of grant that they receive and the Government have no direct control over what they pay. I put to the Committee that that is not satisfactory and these amendments are intended to provide the appropriate control.
The way in which the control will work is quite simple. The grants concerned will be specified in regulations. We anticipate that these will be specific housing grants paid in support of home improvements grants, environmental works, housing defects expenditure, improvement for sale, and slum clearance. When a local authority receives one of these grants, its credit approval will be reduced by the amount of grant received. If it receives more grant than it has credit approval, then future credit approvals will be reduced to compensate.
To compensate for these reductions, the total for credit approvals will be increased by the amount of the specified grants allowed for in government plans. So local authorities will be no worse off as a result of this treatment. In fact they will be better off. They will have more flexibility. They will be able to choose whether to borrow less and receive more grant, or borrow more and receive less grant.
Amendments Nos. 134R and 134S are technical amendments. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This series of amendments, although moved seductively, reflects the constant schizophrenia in government thinking between the claimed desire to give local authorities greater freedom to plan their capital expenditure in a rational way to reflect their local needs and the constant fear that as soon as that has been done and there is any gesture towards independence by local authorities they might misuse such independence and therefore it must all be taken back again. The Paymaster General is telling us that we are on that part of the cycle that says, "We are terrified that local authorities, while not spending more than they are supposed to, because that is already adequately controlled, might not spend the money on exactly the thing that central government wish them to spend it on. They might not get exactly the same balance between home improvement grants, for example, and other forms of capital expenditure".
We therefore have an elaborate procedure now proposed that says, "Yes, you can borrow more money to spend on capital but it will all be taken away from your grants. Yes, you can have more of your grants to spend on something else, but it will
1518
all be taken away from your borrowing powers". If ever there was a case of Whitehall—or in this case Marsham Street—knowing best, that is what is proposed in this series of amendments.
It was moved very seductively. I am grateful to the Paymaster General for explaining in the way that he did. However, this is a profoundly centralist series of amendments. I very much regret that the Government have thought fit to bring it forward and to do so under the guise of increased flexibility when clearly it is not.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 131ZZJ:
Page 60, line 23, after ("that") insert ("section or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 131ZZK:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Effect of certain capital grants on credit approvals
— (1) In this section "specified capital grants" means grants, contributions and subsidies—

(a) which are paid to local authorities in aid of their expenditure for capital purposes;

(b) which are neither commuted payments falling within subsection (2) of section 60 below nor single or other payments falling within subsection (3) of that section; and

(c) which are, or to the extent that they are, specified for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(2) If at any time a local authority receives a specified capital grant, such, if any, of the authority's credit approvals as are relevant to that grant shall, in accordance with the following provisions of this section, be reduced or, as the case may be, extinguished by deducting therefrom an amount equal to the grant.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a credit approval is relevant to a specified capital grant if—

(a) the approval has effect at the time the grant is received or at any time thereafter; and

(b) the purposes for which the approval may be used are or include the purposes towards expenditure on which the grant is made.

(4) Subject to subsections (5) and (6) below, where, by virtue of subsection (2) above, a deduction is required in respect of a specified capital grant,—

(a) the deduction shall be applied to the credit approvals which are relevant to the grant in the order in which those approvals were received;

(b) subject to paragraph (d) below, the reduction or extinguishment of any such approval shall be regarded as taking place when the grant is received;

(c) if the amount of the deduction exceeds the total of the credit approvals which are relevant to the grant and were received before the grant, the excess shall be applied in reduction (or extinguishment) of credit approvals which are so relevant and are received later; and

(d) any such reduction or extinguishment of a later credit approval as is referred to in paragraph (c) above shall be regarded as taking place when the approval is received.

(5) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (4) above, any reduction or extinguishment of a credit approval which is required to be made under Part I of Schedule 3 to this Act shall be applied before any reduction or extinguishment under this section.
(6) In any case where—

(a) before the time when a specified capital grant is received by a local authority, the authority have made a

1519
determination under subsection (1) of section 54 above with respect to a credit approval which is relevant to that grant, and

(b) by virtue of subsection (3) of that section, that credit approval is to any extent to be regarded as having been used before that time,

the credit approval shall not, to that extent, be taken into account under subsections (2) and (4) above; but subject to that, the making of a determination under section 54(1) above with respect to a credit approval shall not affect the operation of those subsections in relation to it.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Capital receipts]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 131ZZL:
Page 61, line 21, at end insert—
("(1A) The following sums are not capital receipts for the purposes of this Part, namely, sums received by an authority in respect of—

(a) the disposal of an interest in an asset which, at the time of the disposal, is an asset of a superannuation fund which the authority are required to keep by virtue of the Superannuation Act 1972; or

(b) the disposal of an investment held for the purposes of such a superannuation fund; or

(c) any repayment or payment such as is mentioned in paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) of subsection (1) above which is made to such a superannuation fund.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 131ZZM:
Page 61, line 39, leave out from ("Part") to end of line 42 and insert ("as being wholly available to enhance capital spending").
The noble Lord said: We bring forward this amendment in order to give the opportunity for the Government to honour what appear to us to be quite unequivocal undertakings given not only by a previous Secretary of State but also by the Government in one Green Paper and one consultation paper.
Perhaps I may begin with the undertaking of the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who was then Secretary of State in another place, in discussing the Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) Regulations at col. 345 of Hansard on 13th March 1985, said:
"There is nothing in the regulations … to prevent these receipts in due course from being spent by the authorities to which they belong. The only issue … is the pace at which those receipts should be spent".
The receipts to which the noble Lord referred were the receipts accumulated under the current capital control system and not of course the receipts to be accumulated under the new capital control system proposed in the Bill. There is a distinction between the old system capital receipts and the new system capital receipts. That distinction ought to have been preserved after the publication of the Green Paper in 1986 and the consultation paper in 1988.
At paragraph 6.40 the Green Paper states:
"Local authorities have been given the assurance that this amount [accumulated receipts brought forward from the present system] will be available in full over time to justify additional capital expenditure".
The consultation paper Review of the Local Authority Capital Expenditure System in England and Wales in 1986 stated:
"The Government does, however, envisage that authorities would be able to use in full for capital expenditure that part of those receipts accumulated under the present system which is still backed by cash".
These are quite clear commitments. They refer to the receipts available under the present system. The Bill proposes to create a distinction between reserved and usable capital receipts. What it does not do and what it ought to do is to maintain the commitment already made that receipts under the old system should all be usable, as they were in the past.
When the matter was raised recently the Government did not attempt to deny that a commitment was given, but they have justified departure from the commitment by saying that the money available—or expected to be available when the council house disposal programme was first started—has proved to be very much greater than the anticipated figure. That is undoubtedly true, but it is not relevant to the issue before us. Indeed it is not referred to either by the then Secretary of State in 1985 or in the two 1986 government papers.
There is no justification whatsoever for the Government now to depart from the clear commitments already given. I invite them now to honour those commitments by accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The amendment would exclude capital receipts from the present system from the definition of capital receipts in the new system. Instead they would be fully available to be spent in the new system.
There are two aspects I should like to consider here. First we have heard a lot from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, about the supposed government assurances on capital receipts. I should like to put the record straight and then I shall turn to the merits of the amendment. I do not blame the noble Lord for running this hare again, but I hope that I shall be able to convince the Committee that it is not a hare that it should back.
First, therefore, the assurances: let us start by looking at what my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding said in November 1984. He said:
"The receipts are and will remain the property of local authorities. They can spend them in future years, but the Government must ensure that the pace at which they are spent is compatible with the Government's spending plans".
My noble friend was speaking in the context of an announcement that the prescribed proportions of capital receipts would be reduced. What he said was a true statement of the effect of that change in the present capital control system. The Committee, I am sure, will agree that my noble friend gave no undertaking that the system could never be changed. In fact he had already announced at that time a review of the present system.
That review led to the publication of proposals for a new capital control system in the Green Paper Paying for Local Government which was published in January 1986. The Green Paper estimated tentatively that accumulated receipts at that time

1521
were £3 billion. It then said—I quote from paragraph 6.40, which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, quoted: I hope the Committee will bear with me—
"Local authorities have been given the assurance that this amount (that is, the £3 billion) will be available in full over time to justify additional capital expenditure".
But that is where the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, stopped. The Green Paper made quite clear that it was our intention that receipts under the new system, which we proposed should operate from April 1987, would not be available fully for additional capital spending. If he had read on to paragraph 6.41 he would have seen one of the options for the treatment of receipts. It said:
"The new legislation would ensure that only the prescribed proportion of receipts could be used over time to justify [addditional capital] … spending, rather than the whole".
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said at Second Reading that local authorities were given a very clear indication that they would be able to spend all their future receipts. I am afraid that that was not what my noble friend Lord Jenkin said. And certainly it did not fit with the clear statement in the January 1986 Green Paper.
I return therefore to the figures quoted by my noble friend Lord Hesketh at Second Reading. Local authorities will have spent £8·5 billion between April 1987 and April 1990. They will take a further £3 billion usable capital receipts into the new system. That makes £11·5 billion in total. If one goes back to the time of the speech of my noble friend Lord Jenkin, the total figure is £14·5 billion. That compares with £3 billion or £4 billion which local authorities had at the time. It seems to me that the noble Lord's protests about broken assurances are rather hollow.
I turn now to the merits of the amendment itself. The effect of it would be to produce an extra £5 billion spending power at the start of the new system. Not all of that would be spent immediately. But a fair amount of it would be. Any responsible government would have to allow for that spending. The result would be a huge cut in credit approvals. In fact there would hardly be any credit approvals at all in the first year of the system. I wonder whether the noble Lord has asked himself which authorities this would hurt. It would hurt those very authorities with high needs and few receipts. It is those authorities which the Bill seeks to help. Perhaps they have not benefited as much as they should have under the present system, and the proposed system is designed to help. I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister chose to quote from other parts of the speech made by the Secretary of State, and that made at an earlier date. He then chose to quote from the January 1986 Green Paper but not from the February 1986 consultation document. In none of those statements was it said that the receipts from the existing system would not be available. A qualification was always made; but it is not now being made because it is irrelevant. It was that there could be a change in the timing of the availability. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, the question was the pace at which the receipts
1522
should be spent. Unless the Secretary of State was deliberately seeking to deceive the House of Commons—and I cannot believe and do not assert that that was the case—the impression that he gave and which has since been universally accepted was that the receipts would be available. The only issue was the pace at which they should be spent. That was confirmed in the February 1986 consultation paper:
"The Government does however envisage that authorities would be able to use in full for capital expenditure that part of those receipts accumulated under the present system which is still backed by cash".
Because of their majority, we do not doubt the Government's intention and ability to carry through a change in the system and the balance between reserved and usable capital receipts under the new system. However, there can be no doubt that the impression given by the Secretary of State in the Green Paper and the consultation document was that the only issue in respect of existing capital receipts—that is up until the time of new legislation because in statutory terms nothing changed between 1986 and now—was the question of timing.
If, on legal examination (of which I am not capable), the Minister can show that the commitment is less clear than it appeared at the time, then if the Government are right now they were certainly wrong then. They succeeded in giving a totally wrong impression of their intentions. The Paymaster General says that my claims are hollow, but I suggest that he has an unenviable choice.
He has to choose between not honouring commitments or his Government having made commitments before his time which did not mean what they apeared to mean. In his shoes, I am not clear which I would rather choose. It is not a satisfactory situation and does not reflect credit on those who made what appeared to be clear commitments. I shall not overturn this by a Division at this stage, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Clause 56 [The reserved part of capital receipts]:
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 62, line 42, leave out ("75") and insert ("5").
The noble Lord said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 133 and 134. At the outset, I congratulate the noble Earl on his advancement to Paymaster General. I very much hope—and I suppose it is a forlorn hope—that he will take into the Treasury the knowledge which he undoubtedly has of the problems which are obviously facing people in the housing sphere today.
These amendments, which the noble Earl will no doubt reject, would give local authorities the opportunity to do something about the growing problem whereby a vast number of people, particularly young people, have been priced out of the housing market especially in South and

1523
South-West of England. There may be an argument that the difficulty in other parts of the country is not so great, but that problem certainly exists in London, the South-West and the South-East. There is no question that prices and rents have gone through the roof and that a large number of our fellow citizens cannot afford to buy or rent. The amendment would give local authorities the opportunity to spend far more of the money that they receive from the sale of council houses on replacing stock which has been sold off.
At present I am not quite sure but I believe that a figure of 20 per cent. is allowed to be spent by the local authorities. In this Bill, which refers specifically to housing, that will increase. That will now become 25 per cent., and in the case of other receipts, 50 per cent. The amendments reduce that 75 per cent. to 5 per cent. so that 95 per cent. of that money could be used to do something about the chronic problem which faces us.
Why should councils which sell off their housing stock not be allowed the greater amount of the money which they receive from those sales to be spent on new construction work? It could perhaps be used for a more suitable type of accommodation; namely, one and two-bedroomed flats and maisonettes. That is the type of accommodation which is desperately needed.
We are in the midst of a housing crisis, although one would not believe that from what the Government say. However, tomorrow I am chairing a seminar run by the Salvation Army to enable representatives from Surrey University to give at least a preliminary response to a study which they did on two nights, in March and November, of the homelessness in London. I believe that the department is interested in the results of that inquiry which one hopes will be very much taken on board in the review which is taking place on homelessness at present.
I know that the Government and the noble Earl believe that the private sector can provide—and I also believe that in the long run the private sector can provide—a solution to the housing crisis, but it cannot do that now and it cannot do that for those who are the most vulnerable in society. It must be right that a council which has a surplus of three-bedroomed houses for historical reasons can sell those and use the money to build two-bedroomed accommodation to satisfy that demand.
The Secretary of State demands that local authorities should use up to 75 per cent. of their capital receipts to meet credit liabilities despite the fact that some of those councils may be paying as little as 6 per cent. on their borrowing. Would any commercial company or prudent family cash in debts on which it was paying 6 per cent. interest in order to take out new loans paying two to three times that amount of interest?
I always remember being addressed by the director general of the CBI and in those days he ran the Audit Commission. He was Mr. John Banham. He gave a presentation to the Cabinet of the time, and also to the opposition parties in the Commons, on local
1524
government spending and the way in which the local government sector managed to balance its books.
It was in fact a very good story. It showed that local government was in very much better order than departments of state. I asked him at the time whether he had actually presented this information to the Prime Minister. He said that he had and that he had been at 10 Downing Street for two hours. Unfortunately, he did not seem to convert anybody. He said that local government in this country, generally speaking, ran a much tighter ship than departments of state. It is a fact that, as a proportion of gross domestic product, local authority borrowing fell from 1·4 per cent. in 1980–81 to 1 per cent. in 1985–86. Over the same period the local authority long-term debt as a proportion of GDP fell from 15 per cent. to 13 per cent. The movement is in the right direction. There is not an argument that local authority has been increasing its debts. The loans outstanding as a proportion of gross annual revenue expenditure fell from 135 per cent. in 1980–81 to 117 per cent. in 1986–87. I gather that those are CIPFA figures.
I shall not delay the Committee as time is getting on. I do not expect to make progress on this matter. I know that the Minister himself is very well aware of the arguments. There is a feeling throughout the country that local authorities have got money. For goodness sake let them use it and let us do something finally to deal with the housing problem which this nation faces particularly in the South and West. That is why I feel so strongly about this matter. It cannot be right for us to let this proposal go through without protest. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Interspersed with these amendments so ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, there are amendments of mine which attempt the same objective but which produce slightly different figures. It does not matter at all because both sets of figures are much better than those of the Government. We need not feel ashamed about the discrepancy. In two cases our figures are more moderate than those of the Government. We are allowing them to reserve more of the receipts from the disposal of dwellinghouses and more of other receipts than the noble Lord, Lord Ross, proposes.
In some respects my amendment is more radical because it proposes to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to specify a lower percentage for the reserved figure, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Ross, simply removes the opportunity for the Secretary of State to make any change at all. There is something profoundly objectionable about the reserved receipts proposal and the argument on which it is based. The Government seek, by quoting a figure of £45 billion, to persuade us that there is something outrageous about local authority debt. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, has made it very clear that the contrast between the conduct of local authority capital financing and central government capital financing is very much to the benefit of local government and to the disadvantage of the reputation of central government.

1525
As a proportion of gross domestic product, local authority borrowing is decreasing. Between the years 1980–81 and 1985–86 local authority borrowing as a proportion of GDP declined from 1·4 per cent. to 1 per cent. Local authority long-term debt declined as a proportion of GDP from 15 per cent. to 13 per cent. There is no significant problem there that can be identified. There is certainly not a problem that can be identified by waving around figures of £45 billion without saying what the figure was before or what changes there are either in real or in money terms.
The real reason why the Government wish to follow this course is that they want to keep greater control over the detail of local authority spending. The polite phrase used in the consultation paper refers to the need to maintain an adequate level of credit approvals. The Government do not like the idea of local authorities spending their own money on things that they consider necessary in the light of their contact with local people. They do not like the idea of local authorities. The Minister was quite candid about this only a few minutes ago. The Government do not like the idea of local authorities having the power to decide what their capital expenditure should be used for even when that expenditure is in the form of receipts on assets which they have built up and for which the ratepayers have paid over the years.
They do not like any sort of autonomy for local authorities and they seek to destroy that autonomy by forcing them to reserve 75 per cent. of their dwellinghouse receipts and 50 per cent. of their other receipts and to use them to redeem the debt. That is in order that there should still be an adequate level of credit approvals—in other words, of the kind of capital finance which central government keep their clammy paws on at every stage. That is further proof of the determination of this Government, in the centralist mood with which they seem to be gripped at the present time, to take away every aspect of local authority financial autonomy that they can think of.
There is no real claim of abuse. They have not made any effective claim that local authorities have been misusing their capital receipts. There is no claim even that capital expenditure by local authorities is too high. They would be hard put to it to maintain such a claim when restraints on capital expenditure have in fact meant that the infrastructure of local authority assets has been decaying and the necessary work, particularly on keeping up the quality of our housing stock, has not been done for a very considerable period of years.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, made an extremely good case for his amendments. If they were to be acceptable to the Committee I would gladly not move mine, but it seems that the case for some drastic change from the Government's proposals is incontrovertible.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps the Minister would consider an additional aspect. The Association of District Councils, of which I have the honour to be one of the vice presidents, and there are many other members of it in the Chamber,
1526
has drawn my attention to a matter which it finds disturbing. It concerns points that have been raised before.
The Government decide to shift the percentages of the non-housing receipts that will stand for the basic credit approvals, yet those outside the Chamber find great difficulty in understanding the criteria and the arguments. The Minister should tell the Committee which regulatory powers the Government are using and give examples of the circumstances when alterations or different provisions might be deemed necessary. There is no point telling us in advance that there is to be a new regime. What those at the sharp end of local government ought to understand is not that changes will be made but the basis upon which they will be made.
In determining the percentages to be applied in respect of reserved and usable receipts the Government have to balance the twin objectives of providing an incentive for authorities to dispose of assets and maintaining a level of credit approvals sufficient to direct resources to areas of greatest need. I believe that they must explain the balance that they have chosen, while recognising that authorities must be free to determine the right time for disposal of their assets.
I made allusions earlier to powers under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. I still believe that many public assets are sold when it is not propitious in the market so to do in order to comply with the directions of Ministers concerning the amount of moneys which the Government expect them to raise by the sale of their assets. We are asking the Minister to say whether he will be consulting with the local authority associations on when the movements take place, and what will be the cause of the movements. There will be great difficulties for authorities. We believe that their ability to embark on joint schemes with the private sector, schemes which the Government have encouraged, will be severely hampered. I want the Government to tell us that they intend to have sensible consultations with local authorities at the appropriate time.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, for his kind words in introducing the amendment. I was interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I wondered whether he would turn to his AMA brief on this amendment, as that would have been of interest to the Committee.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Will the noble Earl take if from me that I have no AMA brief? I shall be happy to listen to the Minister reading his answer to the AMA brief. I shall then be able to decide what the AMA would have wanted me to say if it had asked me to say it.
The Earl of Caithness: My answer is to the ADC brief, which I thought the noble Lord would be picking up on this amendment.

1527
I have listened extremely carefully to what noble Lords have had to say about these amendments. I think I am right in saying, perhaps because of my own interest, that the treatment of capital receipts is an aspect of Part IV which is of most interest to the Committee. It has certainly been of great interest to me over the past year. I hope I am right in saying that there is fairly broad agreement that some of those capital receipts should be used to reduce indebtedness. But for the benefit of noble Lords who do not accept that view, I shall try to persuade them.
Local authorities have always financed most of their capital expenditure by borrowing. There is nothing wrong with that. It means local authorities have debt. But they also have assets which that debt has to be used to acquire. When they come to sell those assets, however, they should ensure that some of the proceeds are used to reduce their debt. Just like when you sell your house, the first thing you do is pay off your mortgage.
There are two approaches to paying off the debt. I shall call them the allocated and the pooled approach respectively. Under the allocated approach debt is allocated to individual assets and when an asset is sold the debt on that asset is paid off. That is what the individual is doing when he sells his house and pays off his mortgage. Under the pooled approach which we have proposed, debt is pooled and a proportion of receipts is used to pay off debt regardless of the debt on the individual assets sold. Indeed, the debt on the individual assets may well not even be known to the authority. The pooled approach would obviously not be suitable for the individual with his mortgage. But it is suitable for a body which has a rolling amount of debt acquired over a long period on a large number of assets.
There are two reasons why we have gone for the pooled rather than the allocated approach. First, not all authorities will know what the debt is on each of their assets. Most, if not all, will know the debt for each service committee. But beyond that they may need to rely on a pro rata apportionment of debt to assets. Once one has to rely on a calculation like that, why not simply go for the aggregate pooled approach?
Secondly, the case for the pooled approach will become even stronger if local authorities adopt the proposals for capital accounting which the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the local authority associations have developed and are consulting on at present. These proposals would involve a move away from charging the cost of debt to particular assets or services. The link between debt and assets would thus be further eroded. As I said, the accounting proposals are the subject of consultation at the moment. I do not want to prejudge that consultation. But we want the new capital finance system to be compatible with whatever accounting practices are likely to be adopted, including those proposals which CIPFA have put forward.
If one is going to adopt the pooled approach, then the question is what proportion of receipts should be set aside for debt redemption. At this stage I
1528
should like to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. He mentioned the difficulty, in the present climate, of local authorities having to pay off a debt taken at 6 per cent., which would be wrong in business terms. I think that the noble Lord's assumption stems from a misunderstanding of what we propose. We are saying that this should be set aside for debt redemption; we are not saying that the debt has to be paid off. Therefore, in the case mentioned by the noble Lord, the local authority need not pay off the debt at a rate of 6 per cent. It could use the money in another way to reduce borrowings. I think that that also covers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, about a forced sale of assets in appropriate circumstances. There is flexibility to cover that situation.
I return to the question of the proportion of the receipts. As Members of the Committee will know, we propose that 75 per cent. of receipts from council house sales should be set aside and 50 per cent. from other receipts. I appreciate that the choice of the appropriate percentage is a difficult matter of balance. On the one hand, we have to ensure that there is sufficient incentive for authorities to generate receipts: on the other hand, we have to ensure that the Government are able to target resources in a sensible manner.
I do not wish to labour the point because Members of the Committee have listened with care all afternoon to what my noble friend Lord Hesketh and I have been saying about the necessity to target resources which the present system does not permit us to do and how this will benefit so many areas which have difficult needs and require better targeting of resources.
Although the balance is a difficult one to judge, the arithmetic is very simple. The main sources of spending power in the new system for capital expenditure will be credit approvals and capital receipts. To simplify matters, let us assume for the moment they are the only sources; and let us assume the Government consider that £6 billion is an appropriate level of capital expenditure. If we allow £2 billion to be spent from receipts, then we can issue £4 billion or credit approvals. If we allow £4 billion to be spent from receipts, then we can only issue £2 billion of credit approvals.
Those figures are purely illustrative. But I have looked at what these amendments would imply. I ask Members of the Committee to pay particular attention to Amendments Nos. 132A and 133A, which would reduce the debt redemption figure to 20 per cent. for all receipts and would reduce the scope for credit approvals by some £2·5 billion, whereas Amendments Nos. 132 and 133—that is, a debt redemption figure of 5 per cent. for council house sales receipts and 15 per cent. for all other receipts—would reduce the scope for credit approvals by some £3·2 billion.
That puts the Government's case very clearly. Indeed, with such low figures for debt redemption I wonder why the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, has bothered setting any requirement for redemption. The plain fact is that the more spending on capital expenditure which is financed from

1529
receipts the less spending room there will be for credit approvals within any total provision for public expenditure. These amendments would concentrate most spending power in the hands of receipts-rich authorities. The Government would have little scope to target resources—through the issuing of credit approvals—at needs. Authorities with few receipts but a strong need to spend would be starved of resources.
To sum up, let me stress two things. First, these proposals do not take receipts away from local authorities. Local authorities will retain their receipts to finance their spending or to repay their debt. Secondly, these proposals do not ignore the needs of local authorities to spend money on their assets; far from it. They actually recognise that need. But they recognise that the need does not necessarily fall in the same place as the receipts. Indeed, quite often exactly the opposite is the case. The areas of greatest need have the fewest receipts; so Clause 56 will restore the Government's ability to ensure that these needs are met.
I shall deal briefly with one or two points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, kindly reminded the Committee when we were discussing local authority debt in England and Wales that we were talking about some £45 billion. I think it is worth remembering that that is 25 per cent. of the total national debt. Moreover, when you look at the local authorities' revenue expenditure you will find that it is something like £32 billion or £33 billion. That puts the matter into context.
However, what about servicing the debt cost charges? Ratepayers and taxpayers would have to pay about £6 billion a year, which is £170 from every adult in the country. We can all benefit from reducing the debt. It would be wrong to lose sight of that fact. The savings to be made on revenue are substantial and, if community charge payers wish, those savings can be ploughed back into extra capital expenditure.
The noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Ross of Newport, said that local authority borrowing is decreasing as a proportion of GDP. I am grateful for that compliment. It shows the true success of the Government's policy. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked whether local authorities would be consulted on the regulations and in particular on movements in their reserve powers. Of course we always like to consult. As he will be aware, I had a big meeting with all the associations earlier this week.
I agree that the amendments are well intentioned, but they would not achieve the results that noble Lords want. They would result in a substantial mismatch of needs and resources.
The Earl of Balfour: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may ask one question. Although I must admit that it is a while since I was involved in local government, when I was a member of a local government finance committee we often borrowed money on the security of the capital and income that we received from the rates. I hope that as a result of
1530
any government proposal to reduce the capital and income of a local authority, it does not then have to borrow at a higher interest rate because it does not have the same security as in the past. I put that as a point. If we lower the capital assets and borrow money, it is less secure and one may be charged a higher rate of interest.
The Earl of Caithness: I am interested in my noble friend's point. I am sure that he will agree that we are talking about a mismatch of needs and resources. That is the Achilles' heel of the present system. We hope that it will not be the Achilles' heel of the proposed system. That is the idea and why we have proportioned the figures in the way that we have.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In a just world the speech that has just been made by the Paymaster General would not merely be immortalised in Hansard; it would be set as a text in an economics paper, preferably at degree level, but it would even work at A-level. It contains more economic misconceptions in the space of five or six minutes that I have heard in my life. It starts with the most obvious one: the idea that there is something natural about repaying a mortgage when one sells one's house.
The issue of whether one repays one's mortgage when one sells one's house depends partly of course upon whether one is going to buy another house with the proceeds. If one buys another house with the proceeds, one repays one's mortgage, not because it is necessarily desirable to do so but because the mortgage company requires that the mortgage be repaid. It is often most disadvantageous to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, talked about repaying borrowings at 6 per cent. so as to borrow at a substantially higher rate. If one has a fixed interest mortgage one greatly regrets the fact that one is forced to repay it so as to obtain a new variable interest mortgage to buy the new property.
That analogy falls flat immediately. The fundamental thing that is wrong with the Paymaster General's argument is the idea that there is some theological level of public expenditure, of which the local authority is a part, to be determined by central government, and that therefore any capital expenditure based on the use of capital receipts must be matched by a reduction in new approved borrowing levels as authorised by central government.
The real, the proper level of capital expenditure by local authorities is not to be set by a theological proportion of a theological figure of government borrowing, particularly when we are not even talking about borrowing but about repayment. It should be set by the needs of the local authority and by the need to renew, expand, improve the assets which the local authority has to maintain in order to provide the services that its ratepayers and inhabitants want. That should be the consideration.
It should not be a zero sum gain, as between credit approvals and capital receipts. This very simple example that the noble Lord gave may well represent government policy, but it is an extraordinarily foolish government policy, in that it does not take

1531
account of the needs of the local authority. The availability over recent years of capital receipts from the sale of council houses has been virtually the only way in which local authorities have been able to meet a demand for new and improved public housing. That demand has become greater because of the sale of council houses.
The issue of whether or not council houses should be sold is now political history. It is agreed by everybody that that is the right policy. But the issue of whether there is still a need for public housing is a live political issue. It will not be resolved by taking away from local authorities the power to spend the capital receipts on their own assets which have been built up by the ratepayers. Both in equity and in economic common sense, the Government's argument falls and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, ought to be supported.
10 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: We have spent half an hour on this subject and ought not to spend much longer. I hope that, when he takes up his new post in the Treasury, the Minister, who has considerable knowledge of the housing problems of the nation, will at least fight the battle for more expenditure on housing both in the public sector and in the housing association movement. I am afraid he is likely to become subsumed into that terrible department, which controls everything. I hope at least that he can
1532
fight some battles on the problems which are not getting better but are getting considerably worse in certain parts of the country.
His response suggested that it was the right way that all authorities should pay this money off debt and the Government themselves would distribute it to the areas of greatest need. If only that were so and that they would do it. But they do not. Perhaps if we had a regional administration in this country we might manage to do something in that field, but we have not.
Therefore, we are right to argue yet again that those authorities which are facing the most dire problems at present should have a much larger allocation of receipts from the sales of houses to enable them to do something about the problems which they face.
There is no point in dividing the Committee on the issue at the moment. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, made a very good point by suggesting that it did not make much sense to pay off debt which one borrows at a rate perhaps as low as 6 per cent. and to be faced with having to borrow money at a higher rate. My first mortgage was from the local authority at 3½ per cent. fixed term, 15 years. I wish one could go back to that now. However, we have debated the subject and there is no point in dividing the Committee. I promise the Minister that we shall come back to this again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 132A to 134ZA not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 134ZB:
Page 63, line 2, at end insert—
("(3A) If the Secretary of State by regulations so provides, capital receipts of a description specified in the regulations shall be treated for the purposes only of this section as reduced by an amount determined in accordance with the regulations.").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 134ZB and, with the leave of the Committee, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 134ZC. We have made it clear that we intend to operate what is known as the "in-and-out" scheme in the new system of capital finance. The existing in-and-out scheme has been very successful and local authorities have been pressing for its continuation under the new system. These amendments provide a broad enabling power that will ensure that we can run a scheme such as a streamlined in-and-out scheme in the new system. It may help some Members of the Committee if I say a little about just what the in-and-out scheme is. In the present system it helps local authorities to carry out certain types of property rationalisation, the replacement of operational assets and the facilitation of private sector investment. It does so by reducing, or in many cases lifting completely, the rate of spend restrictions on the capial receipt arising on the transaction. An example of the operation of the scheme is the case where a local auhority is assembling land under compulsory purchase powers to facilitate a town centre redevelopment by the private sector. Land will pass into the local authority's ownership on compulsory acquisition and then, after a short time, out to the developers' ownership. With the passage of the land through the local authority's hands, it is enabling the private sector development to go ahead. It is right that in such a transaction the local authority should be free to offset the capital receipt against the capital expenditure.
The existing in-and-out scheme operates through the submission of individual applications to the Department of the Environment. Each case is then considered against the criteria for the scheme. With these amendments, however, we intend to run the scheme through regulations as far as possible. There are obvious advantages for local authorities. They will be able to tell whether a project which they have in mind is eligible under the new scheme by reference to the regulations rather than have to submit an application and wait for the result. We are reviewing the details of the present system and will be consulting in the autumn on the criteria we intend to adopt in the regulations for the new scheme. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 134ZC:
Page 63, line 3, after ("(3)") insert ("or subsection (3A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 134ZD:
Page 63, line 24, leave out from ("receipt") to end of line 30 and insert ("received by an authority as trustee of a trust fund which is held for charitable purposes").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Capital receipts not wholly in money paid to the authority]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 134A:
Page 66, line 7, at end insert—
("(7) Nothing in this section shall apply where a disposal under subsection (1)(a) and (c) above, or an assignment or waiver under subsection (1)(b) above, is to a registered housing association.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 134A standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. The purpose of this amendment is to remove any transaction between a local authority and a registered housing association from the provisions of Clause 58.
Clause 58 provides that where a local authority disposes of land, and all or part of the payment is either not in money or is paid to someone other than a local authority, the local authority will be held to have received the full market value of the land—that is, the notional capital receipt—and will have to set aside 75 per cent. of the notional capital receipt for debt repayment. Similar provisions are made where a local authority forgoes all or part of a contracted repayment for a previous disposal.
The effect of this as regards local authorities and housing associations is that, when a local authority has disposed of land to a housing association at an abated price in return for future nomination rights to vacancies in a housing scheme to be produced, the authority would have to regard the abatement as a cash receipt for the purposes of offsetting 75 per cent. of it against outstanding loan debt.
The Minister will clarify and confirm this matter, but as we understand it, if a local authority sells land or housing worth £10 million to a housing association for £5 million, it will still have to make a provision of £7.5 million to repay existing debt, regardless of the fact that it only received £5 million for the transaction. I am advised that no local authority will wish to borrow money to make provision for repayment of debt in these circumstances. The net result of the Clause 58 provisions will be to inhibit local authority and housing association initiatives to utilise local authority land for low cost home ownership or affordable rented housing schemes.
It is difficult to see how the provisions of Clause 58 further the Government's stated objectives of bringing vacant public land back into beneficial use or of increasing the role of housing associations in the provision of affordable housing. In many parts of the country housing association schemes are unlikely to produce affordable homes unless the land can be obtained at less than market value. In addition, many local authorities are unlikely to wish to sell their land if they cannot ensure that that will help to meet the housing needs of the lower paid in their area.
In respect of housing association rented schemes there is no possibility of an abated land price resulting in double public subsidy as the abatement reduces the amount of housing association grant available to a scheme. By reducing the HAG it enables more homes to be produced nationally, as the amount available for HAG nationally will stretch further if associations are able to use local authority land obtained at an abated price.
Whether or not the low cost home ownership initiative will be affordable by those who cannot purchase outright on the open market may well also be dependent on the provision of land at less than market value. Clause 58 is likely to result in a reduction of such initiatives on local authority owned land. If unamended, Clause 58 will provide a serious disincentive to both local authorities and housing associations to work in partnership in order to provide affordable housing. Our amendment would rectify that by exempting transactions between local authorities and registered housing associations from the whole of the provisions of Clause 58. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: It may be helpful if I explain the rationale behind Clause 58. One of the principles underlying the new capital finance system is that when local authorities dispose of capital assets they should make provision for debt redemption. I should draw the Committee's attention to the fact that local authority debt stands at about £45 billion and is still rising, notwithstanding the overall reduction in the council housing stock brought about by the success of right to buy.
Clause 56 provides that when a local authority sells an asset for cash a proportion of the amount received should be set aside for debt redemption.
Clause 58 complements Clause 56. It deals with the disposal of capital assets where, instead of money paid to the authority, the authority receives consideration in kind or where the cash is paid to a third party. The clause requires the authority to value the consideration received and to set aside the appropriate sum as if the whole consideration had been in money paid to the authority. As a general principle that must be right. The local authority is, after all, disposing of one of its capital assets. The original acquisition of most of those assets was financed through borrowing. There is therefore no compelling reason for exempting disposals where the consideration is other than money paid to the authority.
Indeed, past experience has shown that a more relaxed regime for barter transactions has tempted some local authorities to enter such deals to get round the capital system. This could not only undermine the debt redemption provisions of the new system, but also it means that local authorities may not be managing their capital programmes in the most cost effective way. Projects which can go ahead because a barter deal can be struck would proceed in preference to schemes with greater priority in the programme or which represent better value for money.
1536
That said, I have to admit that I was struck by some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, put forward; and I appreciate the reasoning behind his amendment. Transactions where local authorities dispose of land to housing associations at a reduced price can play an important part in the role of authorities as enablers rather than direct providers of services. Plainly, the transactions help to meet the housing needs in an area and encourage local authorities to dispose of assets.
I can give this assurance to the noble Lord. We shall weigh very carefully the points that he has made against the broader points behind Clause 58 which I have already mentioned. I fully appreciate that noble Lords will want to know our conclusion as soon as possible. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall consider the matter with urgency.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am most grateful for the Minister's helpful response. With his deeper knowledge of those matters, he perceives my point quickly and sympathetically; namely, that if the Government want the use of underused land and want to house people at affordable rents, a balance must be struck between what I call the economic imperatives for the Government in the Bill, and their other considerations.
The Minister indicated that the matter would be considered urgently. Shall we have an indication of the outcome of those considerations before the next stage of the Bill? If so, I shall gladly withdraw the amendment and await correspondence.
The Earl of Caithness: I always try to please the noble Lord. The answer is, yes.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I shall please the noble Earl even more by begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 134B:
Page 66, line 7, at end insert—
("(7) Subsection (1) above does not apply to—

(a) transactions carried out in fulfilment of agreements under section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971;

(b) agreements with developers under section 38 of the Highways Act 1980.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with substantially the same problem. In the previous amendment, we tried to come to a better understanding of the impact of the clause on housing associations and affordable rents. This amendment seeks to exclude from the definition of capital receipts contributions made by developers in respect of capital gains. The amendment allows discussion on joint venture arrangements between local authorities and the private sector. During the debate on the amendment in another place, the Government gave an assurance that genuine Section 52 agreements would not give rise to a capital receipt as defined in Clause 58. The Government are invited to confirm that that is still the case.
There is a fine dividing line between Section 52 agreements and other agreements which might broadly be termed barter schemes. Such schemes usually involve the provision of an asset for the local authority by the developer in return for, say, the provision of land by the authority for the development to proceed.
CIPFA—which is a body well known in the Chamber; the Minister has pleaded in aid the views of CIPFA on other amendments—has written to a number of noble Lords. I am in receipt of a copy of its views. It states:
"The Bill as drafted is designed to treat assets acquired by barter in the same way as it treats, say, leased assets or assets financed by loans … For example, if a local authority provides part of the land for a development and the developer provides, say, a 'free' library, school or leisure centre, even though no money changes hands, the local authority will be required to set aside a cash amount based on the notional capital receipt. It is unclear how the capital receipt will be valued. It is clear that this is likely to act as an obstacle to development. This issue is causing concern to both local authorities and developers".
The Minister is well aware of a development over the past 10 or 15 years before which it was unheard of that a developer might obtain planning permission in exchange for the ability to aid other council ambitions; for example, the building of a swimming pool or leisure centre. Some unkind people used nasty words to describe what that is and what the authority does when considering the award of planning permission in those circumstances. However, that is increasingly the way things are done. If a notional value—the receipt of £1 million or £2 million, for example—must be taken into account in that way, it is likely to inhibit very much not just the activities of developers—I have no brief for them—but also the ability of a local authority to strike the best deal for its ratepayers.
I should be grateful if the Minister could respond. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: As the noble Lord has reminded the Committee, this matter was raised in another place. My argument is much the same as the argument made there.
There is no difficulty with genuine planning agreements under Section 52. Clause 58 only comes into operation where local authorities receive consideration in respect of a disposal or right of repayment or payment. Planning permission is not sold. No consideration is received for it. It is not an asset falling within Clauses 55 to 58. So, for example, if a local authority grants planning permission for a development subject to a new access road being constructed and the developer pays the authority to construct the road, Clause 58 would not bite because the authority was not disposing of an asset within the terms of Clause 55. Instead, Clause 40(2)(g) would apply and the developer's contribution could be freely capitalised without any provision for debt redemption by the authority.
Some confusion arises because the term "Section 52 agreements" has been used to cover other transactions. As well as these "pure planning agreements", there are agreements encompassing
1538
development agreements. An example of such an agreement might be where, as well as granting planning permission, the authority hands over land to a developer in return for a leisure centre. That was a point mentioned by the noble Lord.
I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that one of the principles behind the new system is that when a local authority disposes of a capital asset, whether for cash or for payment in kind, it should make some provision for debt redemption. In the example I quoted the authority is plainly disposing of an asset and for this it is receiving a new leisure centre. It is right that this sort of transaction should come within the system of capital finance. The proposed provisions distinguish the "pure planning" agreement from the "development" agreement. Therefore I contend that this amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Is the Minister saying that in the circumstances that I outlined there is or is not to be a notional cost to be taken into account by the local authority when looking at its capital receipts? No money may have changed hands but account has to be taken of the fact that it has received, shall we say, £1 million worth of goods (something that it would have had to spend £1 million on); that is to say, it has received something to the value of £1 million but has not in fact spent that money. If that is the situation, does the Minister not understand that this will be an inhibiting factor between local authorities and developers in proceeding with their business?
That is a consequece of the mechanisms that the Government are setting up. The Government may argue that, if the council has not freely received that facility, it would have had to spend the money in order to provide it. In that case the Minister is right. That is correct. However he will no doubt understand that if from now on that has to be taken into account, there will be consequences for local council finance.
I argue the case put forward by CIPFA, which is a respected body and speaks with authority, not necessarily directly on behalf of councils. It has pointed out to the Government that there will be this consequence. Will the Minister confirm that he is aware that this consequence is likely to be visited upon the local authority? The provision of facilities by local authorities will dry up because they will no longer be free.
I do not intend even remotely to argue in terms of "You get planning permission in exchange for". We do not argue that case at all, and the Minister is as careful as I am. However, as part of the arrangements it may turn out that a local authority has a road paid for by a developer—a road which is helpful to the development but even more helpful to the community. If in future that road will not be built because it will not be a viable proposition, does the Minister appreciate how likely that is to be detrimental to the activities of local councils?
The Earl of Caithness: I hear what the noble Lord has said. However, I go back to the principles of the precise terms of the agreement: whether they are pure planning agreements or development agreements. On the pure planning side such agreements do not fall within Clauses 55 to 58. If there is a development gain in it, it is quite right that it should be taken into consideration because it is a barter deal. The local authority has disposed of an asset and has received a benefit in return. That should be taken into account.
I disagree with the noble Lord when he says categorically that this would inhibit local authorities from striking the best deal, or indeed carrying out any development. Let me put this argument to him: that the opposite is true. In a barter deal the local authority can deal with only one person. Therefore it often would not strike as good a deal as it could have done on the open market. I add further to that. Because of the attractiveness of the barter deal it might be putting forward the wrong priorities in its eagerness to do the deal and therefore not fulfilling its proper role as a result. I contend that there is very much a counter argument to that of the noble Lord. I understand his fears but I do not think that they are well founded.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We shall get no further with this matter. I am grateful to the Minister for understanding what I was driving at, although he stuck to his guns. From my experience, very often there are bitter arguments by unsuccessful applicants for development when they find out that the developer who obtained the planning permission may have received it because of his ability to satisfy the local authority in a number of ways that other applicants did not find necessary or were unwilling so to do.
It is not a black and white issue. The Minister is not correct in assessing the likely impact. He wishes to grip more tightly on the ability of a local authority to manage its money. I am saying that there are consequences, the outcome of which we shall have to await. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Aggregate credit limit]:
10.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 134C:
Page 66, line 10, after ("which") insert ("subject to subsection (1A) below").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 134E, 134F, 134G, 134H and 134M. I shall have to touch on Amendments Nos. 134J and 134K also because they are relevant but they do not stand in my name.
These amendments concern aggregate credit limit and were foreshadowed in my speech at Second
1540
Reading. They are relevant to local authorities with arrears of rent and other income.
Amendments Nos. 134F to 134L concern the temporary revenue borrowing limit, which is part of the overall aggregate credit limit provided by this clause. The temporary revenue borrowing limit, as the name implies, ensures that authorities are able to borrow to cover revenue expenditure pending the receipt of income. That is perfectly reasonable and necessary. An authority must raise sufficient income through community charge, rents and the like to cover its revenue expenditure. But if it needs to make some revenue payments before that income becomes available then, as long as the income is going to be received, it is reasonable for it to borrow until it arrives.
There has always been a power for local authorities to borrow for this purpose. At present it is contained in paragraph 10 of Schedule 13 to the Local Government Act 1972. That paragraph says that local authorities may borrow for the purpose of defraying expenses pending the receipt of revenues receivable by them in respect of the financial year in which these expenses are chargeable.
The difficulty with the present arrangements is that in practice it lasts forever, or at least for as long as the authority persuades itself that the revenue is receivable. So if an authority runs a cash deficit on its housing account because it does not collect the rents, it can borrow to cover that deficit. It can keep that borrowing for as long as it thinks the rents are receivable. But when is an outstanding rent no longer receivable? When it is overdue by three months; six months; one year; two years; when the tenant has left the house without paying or when it is not known who the tenant is? The trouble with the present system is that there is no limit. Opposition Amendments Nos. 134J, 134K and 134L would replicate that defect. They mean that there is no proper and recognisable cut-off point for the temporary borrowing limit. The Opposition amendments therefore have severe drawbacks.
Clearly there has to be a time limit. There has to be a point at which one can say that potential bad debts are no longer proper security for borrowing. That is what the temporary revenue borrowing limit in this clause addresses. Subsection (3) sets that limit. We originally proposed that the limit should be set at six months after the end of the year in respect of which the income was due. But, having carefully considered the representations of the local authority associations, we propose to extend the period to 12 monhs after the end of the financial year. This means that a local authority can borrow throughout year one and year two against rents and income due in year one. It must then raise income in its budget for year three for the outstanding arrears.
We are firmly of the view that the 12-month limit proposed in the amendments strikes the appropriate balance. On the one hand it will allow local authorities to manage their cash flow efficiently and on the other it will encourage better collection of rent and other income. A longer limit, or no effective

1541
limit, would allow certain local authorities to camouflage their failure by borrowing to manage the collection of rents. Irrespective of where the burden for rent and other arrears should fall, there must be a reasonable time limit set for borrowing against rent and income due. The amendments set a reasonable time limit.
That said, however, we do appreciate that there could be problems at the start of the new system of capital finance for authorities with the worst arrears. Amendments Nos. 134C and 134E will allow these local authorities to apply to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for a direction increasing their aggregate credit limit. The increase in the aggregate credit limit would allow a local authority to borrow at the start of the new system to cover these arrears. In issuing a direction to increase the aggregate credit limit the Secretary of State may impose such terms and conditions as he sees fit. He could use this power to specify the manner and timescale for paying off the arrears. We have indicated that we will use the power to allow authorities to spread the budgetary provision for writing off these arrears over three to five years.
Finally, my Lords, Amendment No. 134M extends from 12 to 18 months the period during which local authorities can borrow against capital gains and contributions from third parties towards capital expenditure This extension follows representations from the local authority associations that 12 months is not sufficient. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister asks rhetorical questions about when a debt is likely to be collectable or uncollectable. He gives examples of three months, six months, 12 months, when a tenant has moved or when nobody knows who the tenant is. There is a simple answer to that question, which is that a debt is collectable when the auditor certifies it as collectable. It is an established principle of private sector financing where at the end of each year there has to be a statement of bad debts and where a debt is outstanding for more than a certain period the directors of the company have to certify that a debt is collectable before it can be included in the accounts. The same would apply here. The auditor would be able, on the basis of past experience and without going into every single rent or rate arrear, to establish a perfectly reasonable principle upon which to assess the proportions of the debt outstanding for particular periods which would be collectable, and he could provide a certificate to that effect.
To that extent the 12-month limitation proposed by the Government is irrational. The claim which the Paymaster General makes that opposition amendments involve an unlimited extention of debts is not true. The ultimate control should be—and would be according to our amendments—the auditor rather than an arbitrary period as proposed.
However, I must express my gratitude even for the progress that has been made. An arbitrary 12-month period is better than an arbitrary six-month period. It is a rare pleasure to find my name tabled with
1542
that of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh. Hesketh equals Caithness and Caithness equals Hesketh and I cannot keep track of who is on the Order Paper and who is at the Dispatch Box. It is a rare pleasure to find an amendment in the name of both the Government and the Opposition. It would be churlish to do other than say that this is better than what we had before.
I should like to know whether the Paymaster General has an adequate answer to my claim that the auditor's decision about collectability should count.
The Earl of Caithness: In a perfect world the noble Lord is right. However, I am certain he will agree that notwithstanding their auditors' comments and reports certain authorities have in practice allowed bad debts to run on indefinitely. It is right that we should draw the line where we have.
During the past 18 months I have had the considerable privilege of debating a number of Bills with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I have immense respect for his capability for work and his knowledge of a wide range of subjects. I am grateful for the way in which he has handled all the business we have dealt with together. I hope in particular that the noble Lord will pass on my comments to his noble friends Lord Dean of Beswick and Lord Graham of Edmonton.
I was so stunned by one comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, that I forgot to reply. He said that Ministers in this Chamber do not make policy. I wonder what I have been doing for the past 12 months on housing. I believe that the noble Lord is slightly out of date or is thinking of glorious times in another place. Ministers in this Chamber make a great deal of policy.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his courtesy and the way in which he has handled the business. I look forward to opportunities to debate with him in future.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 134D:
Page 66, line 16, at end insert—
("but the reference in paragraph (d) above to approved investments and cash does not include investments or cash held for the purposes of such a superannuation fund or trust fund as is referred to in paragraph (h) or paragraph (i) of subsection (2) of section 40 above").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 134E to 134H:
Page 66, line 16, at end insert—
("(1A) On an application made by a local authority, the Secretary of State may direct that, for any period specified in the direction, the amount which, apart from the direction, would be the authority's aggregate credit limit at any time during that period shall be increased by an amount specified in the direction with respect to that period; and any increase specified in a direction under this subsection may be expressed to have effect subject to compliance with such terms and conditions as may be so specified.").
Page 66, line 23, at beginning insert ("the aggregate of—(i)").
Page 66, line 26, at end insert ("and
(ii) any relevant arrears in respect of which provision has been or is to be charged to such a revenue account or which have been or are to be written off and charged to such a revenue account;
and for the purposes of paragraph (b)(ii) above "relevant arrears" are amounts in respect of income which remain to be received by the authority and which, as income fall to be credited to a revenue account of the authority for the financial year beginning two years before the beginning of the current financial year.").
Page 66, line 27, leave out ("the first six months of").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 134J to 134L not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 134M to 134P:
Page 66, line 43, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("eighteen").
Page 67, line 2, after ("cash") insert ("referred to in paragraph (d) of subsection (1) above").
Page 67, line 3, leave out ("paragraph (d) of subsection (1) above") and insert ("that paragraph").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 [Duty to set certain amounts aside as provision to meet credit liabilities]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 134Q:
Page 67, line 37, at end insert—
("(6)(a) The calculation of the minimum revenue provision referred to in Part IV of Schedule 3 to this Act shall permit other proper practices to be used for the redemption of debt;
(b) A local authority shall determine its minimum revenue provision in accordance with proper practices and the duty to determine such provision shall be performed before the beginning of the financial year to which the provision is to relate").
The noble Lord said: This provision has given rise to a considerable amount of accountancy controversy. I am not an accountant and I find some difficulty in doing anything other than applying a common sense, layman's thinking to it. The original Government proposal was that there should be a method of determining the provision to be set aside for revenue account to meet credit liabilities on what is called equal instalments of premium.
I had not realised that the noble Earl was leaving us. I would have reciprocated his good wishes. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, would be good enough to convey them to him because I had not realised that he had both ceased to move amendments and was leaving the Chamber.
On representation from the local authority associations, the Government have now changed to what is called a reducing balance basis. When this was proposed in Standing Committee in another place, the then Minister of State and now Secretary of State for Agriculture—and one has to keep up—not only defended the new method of calculating the revenue provision, but he made two claims about it. The first was that that was in
1544
accordance with local authorities' wishes. The second was that it was necessary for all local authorities to have the same debt redemption arrangements.
I challenge both of those claims. First, although the local authorities undoubtedly prefer the reducing balance method to the equal instalments of premium, they would prefer the much more common method of using sinking funds and annuities which have been well established in local authorities. However, above all they would prefer that, as at present, the method of debt redemption should be left to them in accordance with proper practice which is, as we have already seen, a definition of proper accountancy policies set out in Clause 64(3).
There is no good reason why local authorities should not have different policies for debt redemption. They always have done and that has not caused any confusion whatever. This is an unnecessary and nasty little piece of intrusion into local authorities' financial responsibilities. I regret that the Government should seek to lay down the law. It does not do anybody any harm, within the definition of proper practice controlled by the Secretary of State, to have a variation of methods to suit local needs. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I shall certainly bear the felicitations and good wishes of the noble Lord to my noble friend the Paymaster General.
The amendment would allow local authorities to choose any system they like for redeeming debt so long as it was consistent with proper practices. This matter has been aired in another place and there is disagreement between us and the Opposition. Clause 60 and Part IV of Schedule 3 provides that local authorities should use the reducing balance method of debt redemption, unless the Secretary of State provides otherwise by regulations.
First, I should make clear that we are talking about prescribing a minimum of debt redemption provision for an authority for each year. It is the proper role of central government to set out the framework or in this case the minimum requirement. But authorities will be free to make greater provision, and how they treat the provision they make in their accounts will be a matter for them.
It is nothing new for central government to prescribe a method for debt redemption. There is a method of debt redemption provided for in the existing legislation. It is the annuity method, which is the basis on which a normal repayment mortgage works. It is provided in paragraph 7 of Schedule 13 to the Local Government Act 1972. We are repealing that legislation in this Bill, so it is perfectly reasonable that we replace it with some statutory method of debt redemption. We cannot simply leave matters to be decided entirely by accounting codes. I would remind the Committee that proper practices can be either statutory or non-statutory. Indeed, the majority of proper practices are to be found in legislation rather than elsewhere.
Part IV of Schedule 3 sets out a proper practice in relation to provision for credit liabilities. Past experience has shown that any room for doubt may

1545
lead to confusion, and some authorities may take the opportunity to exploit any uncertainty. We accept that proper practices have a role to play. But that role is complementing the statutory framework. They should flesh out the statutory skeleton. The question is what method should form that skeleton, not whether there should be a method.
We have chosen the reducing balance method. Our proposal is a compromise. It seems much more widely welcome to local authorities than the original proposal—the equal instalment of principal method or straight-line method as it is sometimes known.
We firmly believe that the reducing balance method is the correct approach for prescribing the minimum revenue provision. This amendment would replace it with freedom for authorities to choose any method that could be said to conform to the proper practices. I am afraid that past experience has shown that authorities are all too ready to change this method from year to year—by varying sinking fund rates, for example—so as artificially to defer or bring forward expenditure. That is bad for accountability. For those reasons I urge the Committee to resist the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on this occasion and to resist this amendment.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble Lord sits down, in conveying the good wishes of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to his noble friend Lord Caithness, perhaps the Minister will convey also the good wishes of my noble friends on these Benches. I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Ross of Newport would have wished to say this had he been able to be here.
Lord Hesketh: It gives me great pleasure to be twice blessed as the postman carrying felicitations to my noble friend.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As long as the Minister accepts that it works both ways: we shall shoot the messenger if he brings bad news. I believe that the Minister has set out very clearly in his reply the reasons why we find these amendments necessary and the Government's proposals unacceptable. He is very simply saying that the men in Whitehall and Marsham Street decide that what they think goes and that local authorities will follow whatever accountancy method these men find preferable.
There is a perfectly adequate provision of proper practice which rules out matters that would run the risk of lack of accountability, which is the charge that the Minister made. There are already in existence codes of practice agreed between local authorities and central government which lay down rules concerning debt redemption. Our view is that those rules are good enough. There should be no reason why a particular method, which may be appropriate for some authorities and not for others, or may be appropriate at some time and not others, should be imposed on all local authorities at all times. As the Minister said, this has become a matter of straight disagreement. We are not going to
1546
persuade him. It is another example of overprescription by central government on the practices of local government. I find it deeply unacceptable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Provisions supplementing Part IV]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 134R and 134S:
Page 152, line 36, at end insert—
("(2) Any reduction or extinguishment of a n authority's basic credit approval under this paragraph shall be regarded as taking place immediately after the approval is received by the authority.").
Page 152, line 41, at end insert—
("(2) Any reduction or extinguishment of an authority's basic credit approval under this paragraph shall be regarded as taking place immediately after the approval is received by the authority.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Information]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 134T:
Page 68, line 7, leave out ("has acted, or is") and insert ("have acted, or are").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move this amendment and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 134U, 134V, 134W and 134X. These are drafting amendments. They are important because, although there: may be some differences between Members of the Committee on the substance of Part IV, I am sure we are all agreed that the grammar should be correct. Some people like their local authorities to be singular. Others like them to be plural. Parliamentary draftsmen are no exception to this. In some Acts of Parliament the words "local authority" are treated as a singular noun; in others they are plural. Part IV follows the pluralist road but a few references to local authorities in the singular crept into Clause 62. These amendments correct these oversights to bring Clause 62 into line with the rest of Part IV. In that context, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Some draftsmen may prefer their local authorities singular and some of them plural. We prefer our local authorities independent. The Government propose to have them completely under the thumb of central Government. That is the difference which divides us on Part IV and on so many parts of this Bill.
However, we are about to adjourn the proceedings of the Committee until October without completing the progress of the Bill, and we—the select band who are still here—shall have the pleasure of meeting again in October. I have in no way been more convinced than I was of the virtue of the Bill. In

1547
fact, I have become even more convinced of its many vices. Despite that what I am grateful for is the unfailing courtesy of Ministers on the Government Front Bench and above all the support of my own colleagues and that of colleagues on the other Opposition Benches. I wish all of them on all sides of the Committee a very happy and restful Recess.
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I may intervene in order to reciprocate the feelings just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. It has been a lengthy Session, and this is a lengthy Bill which we are only half way through. But I take this opportunity of wishing all those on both sides, and particularly on the opposite Benches, a very restful Recess in preparation for the autumn.
Lord Winstanley: I thought some of us had to be here tomorrow.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 134U to 134X:
Page 68, line 14, leave out ("it has") and insert ("the authority").
Page 68, line 26, leave out ("fails") and insert ("fail").
Page 68, line 30, leave out ("has acted, or is") and insert ("have acted, or are").
Page 68, line 36 leave out ("has acted, or is") and insert ("have acted, or are").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 [Interpretation of Part IV]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 134Y:
Page 69, line 37, after ("doubt") insert ("except as provided by section 42(4A) above").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

London Regional Transport (No. 2) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
House adjourned at seven minutes before eleven o'clock.

  JOB APPLICANTS' BACKGROUND: ACCESS TO POLICE INFORMATION
  JOB APPLICANTS' BACKGROUND: ACCESS TO POLICE INFORMATION
  UNDERGROUND STATIONS: FIRE PRECAUTIONS REGULATIONS
  UNDERGROUND STATIONS: FIRE PRECAUTIONS REGULATIONS
  EAST SUTTON PARK PRISON: LIBRARY SERVICE
  EAST SUTTON PARK PRISON: LIBRARY SERVICE
  NATIONAL CURRICULUM: MARINE ENVIRONMENT
  NATIONAL CURRICULUM: MARINE ENVIRONMENT
  CONTINUOUS PLANKTON RECORDER SURVEY
  CONTINUOUS PLANKTON RECORDER SURVEY
  OZONE LAYER RESEARCH
  OZONE LAYER RESEARCH
  CTCs: PUBLIC EXAMINATIONS OFFERED
  CTCs: PUBLIC EXAMINATIONS OFFERED
  EAST LONDON RAIL STUDY: CONSULTANTS' REPORT
  EAST LONDON RAIL STUDY: CONSULTANTS' REPORT
  DoE PLANNING INSPECTORATE: OPERATION AS AGENCY
  DoE PLANNING INSPECTORATE: OPERATION AS AGENCY
  SEA LEVEL RISE: EFFECT ON ESTUARINE WADERS
  SEA LEVEL RISE: EFFECT ON ESTUARINE WADERS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT DATA
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT DATA
  CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS: EC DIRECTIVE
  CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS: EC DIRECTIVE
  HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL REPORT: RESPONSE
  HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL REPORT: RESPONSE
  NCC: GRANT-IN AID 1986/89
  NCC: GRANT-IN AID 1986/89
  WILD BIRD SPECIAL PROTECTION AREAS
  WILD BIRD SPECIAL PROTECTION AREAS
  ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: OFFICIAL SOURCE
  ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: OFFICIAL SOURCE
  MERSEYSIDE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: NAO REPORT
  MERSEYSIDE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: NAO REPORT