Sitting of 14 June 1989

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

  BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Human Rights
    Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received any recent representations about human rights abuses in Commonwealth member states; and whether he plans to raise the question of human rights at the forthcoming Commonwealth conference in Malaysia.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Timothy Eggar): We receive representations about human rights in many countries, including some Commonwealth members. Discussions between Commonwealth Heads of Government are confidential and wide-ranging. It is too early to say what issues my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will address in her interventions.
    Mr. Atkinson: In view of the representations received over the years, can my hon. Friend confirm that basic human rights continue to be denied in at least one quarter to one third of Commonwealth member states, including Malaysia, where to convert from Islam to Christianity is punishable and may render the individual open to persecution? At the forthcoming conference in Malaysia, will my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary submit proposals for the establishment of a Commonwealth human rights commission along the lines of the United Nations Commission of Human Rights and the Helsinki process?
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend's reference to the state of affairs in Malaysia relates to the laws of the states rather than to federal laws. Within the Commonwealth secretariat there is already a special unit, established in early 1985, to deal with human rights issues. We believe that human rights are universal. Instead of creating another forum for debating them we should concentrate on strengthening the existing United Nations human rights bodies and mechanisms.
    Mrs. Mahon: Is the Minister aware that three out of five Tamil refugees who were forcibly returned to Colombo in February 1988 have been tortured? What do the Government intend to do about that?
    Mr. Eggar: I am sure that if the hon. Lady can substantiate her assertion we will draw it to the attention of the Sri Lankan Government.
    Sir Jim Spicer: My hon. Friend the Minister has rightly said that human rights are universal, and we all accept that. Against that background, will he comment on the persecution, on a major scale, of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria? What representations—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Bulgaria is not in the Commonwealth.
    Sir Jim Spicer: With respect, Mr. Speaker, my hon. hon. Friend's reply opened up the discussion by saying that human rights are universal. My question simply followed on from my hon. Friend's answer.
    Mr. Eggar: The Government issued a statement this morning on the subject that my hon. Friend raised.
    Mr. Anderson: Will the Government be trying to dissuade other Commonwealth premiers from raising the question of human rights in South Africa at the conference? The Government might be less en the defensive if we had joined the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers group and taken a high profile on human rights in South Africa. Will the Government raise the matter of the proposed judicial execution of the Upington 14 next week when the Prime Minister welcomes Mr. F. W. de Klerk to this country?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that South Africa is no longer a member of the Commonwealth. I imagine that issues of that kind concerning South Africa will be raised at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference, and certainly we shall do nothing to stop that. As to the Upington 14, it would be inappropriate to make any representations at this stage, when the normal legal processes can still be used.

    European Elections
    Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards a uniform electoral system for the European elections.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): There are no current proposals for a uniform electoral procedure for European parliamentary elections.
    Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister agree that at the forthcoming European elections Britain will be seen as the odd man out in not having a fair voting system?
    Mrs. Chalker: No, and the hon. Gentleman ought to know that the right of initiative for a uniform voting procedure lies with the European Parliament and not with individual member Governments or with the Council of Ministers.
    Mr. William Powell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her answer is widely welcomed by Conservative Members and that nothing could be more absurd than trying to dive into a universal system of proportional representation throughout the European Community? Will my right hon. Friend look into the unsatisfactory system of having a separate election day in June so that in future British European elections can be held on the same day as local elections in May?
    Mrs. Chalker: Counting of votes in this country for European elections cannot begin until the close of polls in other European countries. It would be inappropriate to have a gap from May to June, which is when the European elections are always likely to be held, before the votes cast in May can be counted.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister not realise that it makes no difference which electoral procedure is in force tomorrow because Labour will sweep to victory and the population of this country, not least in the marginal seat of Leicestershire, will show the Thatcher Government just what it thinks of them, which is very little indeed?
    Mrs. Chalker: I have always had faith in democracy, even when, occasionally, as in 1974, it elects a Government of the wrong colour. We must ensure that democracy prevails in many more countries.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Did my right hon. Friend regard it as even remotely fair when the small minority of Liberals in the German Government decided to abandon the Socialists and turn to the Christian Democrats and thus bring about a change of Government without reference to the German electorate?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend has explained what can happen in some countries as a result of the list system, which gives central control to the parties and allows a change of policy without further reference to the electorate. While it may be liked by some, a list system would not give the current leader of the British Labour group in Strasbourg the chance to be re-elected.

    European Commission
    Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the President of the European Commission; and what matters he expects to discuss.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the President of the European Commission; and what matters he expects to discuss.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I next expect to meet the President of the Commission on 26 and 27 June at the meeting of the European Council when discussion will extend to the entire range of business before the Council.
    Ms. Mowlam: When the Foreign Secretary meets the President at the European Council meeting, how will he justify the Government's decision this week to veto the EC directive to provide more child care, parental leave and flexible working arrangements for working parents in this country? Does he accept that those improvements are
    892
    needed now, and by 1992 they will be essential, or will he follow the Government's usual policy of assuming that if they are in a minority of one they must be right?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: This is one of many issues in which progress can be, should be and has been achieved on the basis of national responsibilities. We must think carefully before we seek to transfer responsibility to the European Community. That is the fulfilment of a principle that the President of the European Community will recognise—the principle of subsidiarity, which leaves it to the nation states to do those things which are best done by them.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: When the Foreign Secretary meets his fellow Ministers, will he support the Chancellor's view of our joining the European monetary system or the Prime Minister's view?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will support the view expressed by both of them. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at a press conference on Monday:
    "It is not a question of whether we join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS, it is a question of when."
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said many times—I heard her say it at the launching of our manifesto —that:
    "The policy is exactly the same as it was. We shall join when the time is right."
    Mr. John Marshall: When my right hon. and learned Friend sees the president of the Commission, will he confirm that he disagrees with Dr. Barry Seal's view that Britain should leave the Community?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not know for whom Dr. Seal speaks—he certainly does not speak for the British Government or the British people.
    Mr. Wells: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be entirely wrong for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or for him to discuss the outcome of the Delors report on European monetary union unless a debate had been held in the House before the Prime Minister's attendance at the European Council and her meeting with the Commission?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: There will be a number of opportunities for debate on those matters in the House and in the European Council. It will be for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to work out how they can best be reconciled.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Would the Foreign Secretary support a move towards greater uniformity in voting practices in Europe? Would it not now be appropriate for him to talk to the Prime Minister and for the Prime Minister to talk to the Leader of the Opposition with a view, for example, to convening a Speakers' Conference to consider proportional representation and fixed-term Parliaments? I think that it is time that we thought about that.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is not a matter for a multinational Speakers' Conference. It has been considered by the European Parliament, and its report has been rejected; that is where the matter now rests.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend point out to the President of the European Commission that Britain is already showing the way to a real social dimension by generating jobs in their hundreds of thousands through policies of enterprise and growth?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have pointed that out to the President and, with my hon. Friends, will continue to do so on every possible occasion. Unemployment in Britain has fallen for 33 consecutive months, and the number of jobs created between June 1983 and June 1987—the last period for which records are available—is larger than that in the whole of the rest of the Community put together, for exactly the reasons that my hon. Friend has given.
    Mr. Kaufman: When the Foreign Secretary meets the President of the Commission, will he specify the items in the proposed social charter that have led the Prime Minister to describe it as "Marxist"?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that many provisions in that document provide for substantial increases in the representation of organised trade unions on the boards of companies—an object that the Labour Government were trying to escape 20 years ago. In the past 20 years we have managed to shuffle off many problems and thus enhance the success of our economy. It would be entirely foolish for us to accept such prescriptions and to follow the right hon. Gentleman in the opposite direction.

    Middle East
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Soviet involvement in the middle east peace process.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): We welcome all efforts, including those of the Soviet Union, to build confidence between the parties to the Arab-Israel dispute and to prepare the way for negotiations. Improved Soviet-Israel relations can contribute to this.
    Mr. MacKay: As Syria is clearly a major obstacle to the peace process in the middle east, and since no country in the region can bring any influence to bear on it—as the recent Arab League summit in Morocco clearly showed —does my hon. Friend think that the Soviets might have some influence, and might he able to exert some pressure on Syria?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. The issue was discussed when my right hon. and learned Friend met Mr. Shevardnadze recently. Soviet influence on Syria should not be exaggerated, but certainly the Soviet contribution must rest on urging Syria to come to the peace table with the other Arab states.
    Mr. Bell: We would all welcome the involvement of the Soviet Union in any peace process in the middle east, but is it not a fact that in the past 20-odd years the Soviets have had very little influence in the middle east? What does the Minister believe that they can provide by way of positive input into the peace process?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I make two points. First, there is the influence over Syria to which my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) referred. Secondly, by re-establishing full diplomatic relations with Israel I think that the Soviets would go a long way towards building the confidence in Israel which I consider a necessary part of encouraging Israel to negotiate.
    Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Soviets have shown considerable interest in Mr. Shamir's proposal for elections on the West Bank and Gaza? Has he discussed those proposals with Soviet diplomats and are they doing what they can to progress this idea further in discussions with the Palestine Liberation Organisation?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We believe that one of the influences that has helped to lead the PLO into more moderate paths has been advice from the Soviet Union, because a good many of the groups within the PLO have close relations with Moscow. Certainly our officials have discussed this in Moscow. We hope that the more moderate and pragmatic line will be continued by the Soviet Union.
    Ms. Short: Will the Minister discuss with the Soviet Union how to do something about the intransigence of Israel and its absolute breach of international law and of the Geneva convention in the occupied territories? Has not the time now come when the international community ought to exert pressure on Israel so that it will be willing to make peace instead of demanding to hang on to the occupied territories in breach of international law and trying to break the Palestinian people in the process? is it not time for action and for pressure to be put on Israel to come to the negotiating table?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Her Majesty's Government, the Governments of the Twelve, and now the Governmenr, of the United States in an excellent speech by Mr. Baker to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee—in the United States—have made it very clear that we all believe that Israeli policy is leading to a dead end. The most eloquent statement of that position that I have ever read is the extract from Mr. Amos Oz's speech reproduced in The Daily Telegraph today.
    Sir Dennis Walters: Does my hon. Friend recognise that over the past eight months the PLO, by a series of statements and declarations, has given every possible indication of its desire to make progress towards peace? The Israeli response has been wholly negative. What steps is my hon. Friend considering, with our European partners and the United States, to change the obdurate attitude of Israel?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We welcomed the element in Mr. Shamir's proposals which related to elections. We did not believe the proposals as they stood were acceptable to the Palestinians, but they represented a small step forward. We have been urging both sides to take that proposal and to develop it into something which could lead to a full process towards peace. I would not say that there has been no movement on the Israeli side, but I would say that the proposal for elections needs further development, if it is to be acceptable.

    European Monetary Union
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the question of European monetary union with M. Jacques Delors.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: European monetary co-operation was discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council in

    895
    Luxembourg on 12–13 June, which M. Delors attended, in the context of preparations for the European Council at Madrid on 26–27 June.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Foreign Secretary take it from me that we missed his presence at the Hawick common riding on Friday? I hope that he enjoyed his visit to the Borders, where I can tell him that the Delors report and the details thereof were on everyone's lips. The Government's endless procrastination is not good enough as it is prejudicing London as a financial centre in the longer term. More immediately and urgently, it is prejudicing the interests of millions of young home buyers who are making high mortgage repayments because of high interest rates. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that if there is continuing uncertainty about the currency, whatever the exchange rate, interest rates will always rise and that the only way to end that uncertainty is to join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for my visitation to his constituency, where I was delighted to find a growing fund of wisdom determined to return to the European Parliament the excellent Conservative representative. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name him!"] His name is Alasdair Hutton. If I am allowed to do so, I should like to advertise it even more plainly. All prudent voters in the hon. Gentleman's constituency should take the opportunity to vote tomorrow for Alasdair Hutton. I should also add, in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, that our reaction to the Delors report on economic and monetary union makes a sharp distinction between what is there spelt out for stages 2 and 3 of the process towards economic and monetary union, which involves very far-reaching changes indeed which cannot be contemplated in the foreseeable future. In relation to the first stage, we have already taken many practical steps in that direction. We will need to see how much further we can go. There is a distinction to be drawn, and we strongly support what can be done under stage 1.
    Mrs. Currie: Are not the economies of the member states still too different? They have different growth rates, employment patterns, unemployment rates, economic histories and patterns of economic development. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that entry into something as rigid and controlled as European monetary union should be a consequence of future closer co-operation between the economies which will come after 1992—and, I hope, before—and not a precursor of it?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right in focusing on one aspect of the many features that are necessary before stages 2 and 3 of EMU can be contemplated. She has drawn attention to the economic factors. Powerful changes in institutional and constitutional arrangements will also have to be made, including transfers of sovereignty to Europe-wide institutions in relation to economic and monetary policy. I am sure that those changes go well beyond those contemplated by the overwhelming majority of hon. Members.
    Mr. Spearing: When the Foreign Secretary next meets Mr. Delors and talks about economic and monetary union, will he assure him that the signature of the Governor of the Bank of England on the Delors report
    896
    was to show assent to the feasibility of the changes, not their merits or desirability? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman comment on the particular method used by the Community which may cause misunderstandings about what the signature represents?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman, with his customary insight, has easily overcome any risk of misunderstanding. It has been well known throughout that the Governor participated in that report in a personal capacity, and the report represents the conclusions of a group of experts and others constituted in that way. It is important to recognise that, even in respect of feasibility, the report emphasised the immense sequence of changes that would have to be made over a long period and expressly excluded any commitment to a timetable of any kind—so to that extent as well, it was wise. The least percipient section of the report was paragraph 39, which argued that by taking the first step one was committed to the last. Nothing should be further from the truth.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the United Nations Secretary-General to discuss the United Nations initiative for solving the Cyprus problem; and what matters were discussed.
    Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last discussed the Cyprus problem with the United Nations Secretary-General in Tokyo on 25 February, when they reviewed progress in the intercom-munal talks. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also discussed the Cyprus problem with the Secretary-General on 18 April and met him again earlier today.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that successful reunification of Cyprus depends upon an improved atmosphere of trust between the two communities, which will be promoted by the kind of intercommunal conference organised under parliamentary auspices in Nicosia this weekend? Given the previous reluctance of the Turkish Cypriot leadership to allow political leaders to attend such conferences, will my right hon. Friend make what representations she can to persuade the leaders that their attendance at these conferences is not an act of political subversion but a constructive commitment to the kind of improvement in relations that will lead to a successful relocation of the army?
    Mrs. Chalker: The whole House will accept that the more the two communities and their two leaders—the President of the Republic of Cyprus and the leader from the north—come together, the more likely it is that the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General will be successful in bringing about a resolution of the problem. That would be further underpinned by a meeting of people from both the communities. As my hon. Friend recognises, that is not being encouraged from the north. One can only hope that by further discussion we will get on top of the problems and that the United Nations Secretary-General's plan will be put into operation.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Arising from the re-equipment and modernisation of the Greek Cypriot guard by French companies during the past year, including the provision of

    897
    new tanks and missiles, does the Minister think that this militarisation will give an assurance to the Turkish Cypriots about their safety in a united Cyprus? Does she think that it will encourage the Turkish army to reduce its numbers in Cyprus? Does she think that this is helpful to the intercommunal talks with which the Secretary-General is trying to proceed?
    Mrs. Chalker: Any increase in tension between the communities, however it may be caused, would be unhelpful. The United Nations force, UNFICYP, has sought to keep the balance between the two communities and it has done a magnificent job, not least Britain's 741 men who form the largest contingent. Both sides need major constraint and a great deal of patience. I am confident that the Secretary-General is prepared to see it through patiently and consistently. We will give whatever help we can to a resolution under his auspices.
    Mr. Lawrence: Would it help to speed a solution to the Cyprus problem if the Government followed their more normal pattern of even-handedness and did not give the impression that they were on the side of the Greeks?
    Mr. Tony Banks: We are.
    Mrs. Chalker: We have supported the United Nations Secretary-General at every turn. We have always tried to be what my hon. and learned Friend described as even-handed. His reference was, perhaps, to our difficulties because the declaration of independence by Rauf Denktas in 1983 was illegal, and nothing can change that. It is crucial to get the timing of further talks right. I sincerely hope that by the end of this month further progress will have been made. We shall continue to be even-handed, as we have been all along.
    Mr. Heffer: Everyone welcomes the fact that the Government are trying to be even-handed, but the Minister was right to point out that it was illegal action by the Turks, especially the invasion by Turkish soliders, that led to the division of Cyprus. Should we not be bringing pressure to bear on the Turks? After all, Turkey is a member of NATO. If Britain believes in defending democracy and freedom, should it not tell Turkey that if it wishes to remain a member it should withdraw its troops, thus laying a better basis to bring together the two peoples of Cyprus?
    Mrs. Chalker: Britain is absolutely right to continue to support the initiative of the United Nations' Secretary-General. There is no question of trying to resolve such a difficult matter in any other way. However difficult the problem may sometimes appear to be to the President of Cyprus and to Mr. Denktas, it can be resolved only through discussions. It would be to good effect if influence could be brought to bear either by the Turkish or Greek Governments, or by a resolution in line with the Secretary-General's plan.

    China
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current British/Chinese relations.
    Mr. Geoffrey Howe: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement in the House on 6 June, when I said that under present circumstances there could be no question of continuing normal business with the Chinese authorities.
    Mr. Winnick: Will the Foreign Secretary again tell the Chinese authorities, if he has not already done so, of the widespread feeling of revulsion in Britain at the continuing intimidation, brutality and terror tactics that the Chinese authorities are using against anyone considered to be a dissident or a subversive? If they continue their present policy of terror, is there not bound to be a growing feeling among democracies—not just Britain—that effective steps should be taken against that dictatorship?
    Will the Foreign Office work closely with the Home Office to ensure that those Chinese students studying in this country who have a well-founded fear of returning home in the present circumstances will receive sympathetic consideration of their requests to stay in this country?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The first point expressed by the hon. Gentleman was exactly the one expressed it the meeting of European Foreign Ministers on Monday, which I attended. We joined in expressing the clear view that continued repression, such as that being enforced by the authorities in China, following the savagery and brutality of the previous week, is likely to lead to a progressive decline in China's status in the eyes of the rest of the world. We are trying to get that message through as clearly and as plainly as possible. As to Chinese students in Britain and other Community countries, a clear view was expressed that applications to extend their right to stay in their respective host countries should be sympathetically considered in the light of the facts that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
    Mr. Walden: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with hon. Members who recently visited Hong Kong that the most honourable approach to the predicament of its people is the most realistic? Does my right hon. and learned Friend further agree that it would be wrong to jettison the Sino-British agreement; that it would be wrong to encourage mass emigration, which would undermine the stability of the colony; and that it would be wrong to encourage the illusion that the swifter introduction of democracy would be any bulwark against a regime that has manifestly taken leave of its senses? Does he agree that there are circumstances in which prudence can be a potent substitute for power?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for summarising the chunks of wisdom that we have been able to read in newspaper articles that he has written recently. He is right to urge, above all, a sense of balance and realism. Plainly, as I said in the House last week, if it is possible to make headway by enhancing and consolidating democratic structures within the territory of Hong Kong, it should be considered in the light of the views being expressed there. It would be wrong to do or say anything that would encourage a flood of emigration. Above all, my hon. Friend rightly emphasised the importance of retaining the foundation for the future—the joint declaration. One must ask whether the future would be better or worse in the absence of it. It is clear that a future built on the continuation of the declaration will be far

    899
    stronger. Our task must be to do all that we can to make the Chinese Government give the declaration the support that their international obligations require.
    Mr. Morgan: Having read the press release from the Monday Club last week, which said:
    "We should not become the dustbin of Europe"—
    Mr. Speaker: Paraphrase, please.
    Mr. Morgan: The press release states that the people of Hong Kong are not British but Chinese and that this country should not become the dustbin of Europe. Further to the reply that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about the position of mainland Chinese students in Britain, will he say what provision the Foreign Office is making to provide some means of funding for them, because they are funded on a monthly bursary basis by the Chinese Government? How will they survive in Britain if they have a well-founded fear of persecution should they return home?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is not possible to address oneself to all the possible implications of what has happened recently in China, save step by step. Our present concern, which was expressed by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), is to secure a minimum assurance about the response that will be given to applications made by Chinese students to extend their stay in Britain. Some of them are here on scholarships financed in this country and some on scholarships financed by their home Government. We shall have to see how the arrangements can best be made. It is most important that the world secures, as soon as it can be achieved, a return to a more reasonable and more restrained style of Government in Peking.
    Mr. Adley: I endorse the view put quietly but essentially by my right hon. and learned Friend and by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the only beneficiaries from the present position are those who, for some time, have been trying to sow mistrust between Britain and China to undermine the joint agreement? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that to bring succour to the suffering people of China in their hour of turmoil, and to restore confidence to the people of Hong Kong, it is necessary, however distasteful, to continue to do business with those who are currently in charge of affairs in China?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I must say to my hon. Friend that it is very difficult, even with the most far-ranging eye, to detect anyone who can be classified as a beneficiary of the tragic brutality of the past few weeks in Beijing. It is certainly right for us to do everything we can to bring about a reversal of those trends. We have moved in that direction by making it plain that neither normal high-level contact nor the continuation of arms contracts can be contemplated in the present circumstances. We have equally made it plain that it is important to retain such contacts as can be built on continuing commercial or personal relationships, for example. Sooner rather than later we must try to achieve a means of getting through to those in authority in Beijing just how deeply the rest of the
    900
    world mourns what has happened to the progress that has taken place in the past 10 years and how strongly we urge a return of common sense and sanity to that country.
    Mr. Foulkes: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that what he said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was a clear condemnation of the purge now under way in China? As well as giving sympathetic consideration to applications from Chinese students in the United Kingdom, will he give sympathetic consideration to applications for refugee status from any Chinese democracy activists who feel that they may be in danger in the present purge and who seek refuge in the British embassy in China?
    Will the Foreign Secretary tell us his response to the widespread support in Hong Kong for much faster progress towards democracy in that territory? Does he agree that he and his colleagues are on pretty shaky ground when criticising the lack of democracy in China or elsewhere while retaining colonial paternalism in Hong Kong?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have already made it very clear that the purge was condemned not only by Her Majesty's Government, but by the other Governments of the European Community last week and again at our meeting this week. I have also explained the extent to which we clearly need to respond sympathetically where possible to the applications about which we have been talking. On Hong Kong, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the answer is by no means as simple as he thinks. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) put a more cautious view of it. It has been discussed at some length in the evidence given by the Governor of Hong Kong to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on Monday this week. Obviously, it is prudent to see what more can be done, as I said last week, to advance and consolidate the democratic process as a bulwark for the future of Hong Kong and to do so in the light of the views more recently expressed in Hong Kong. It would not be right to jump to premature, absolutist conclusions.
    Sir John Stokes: I have recently been in China and Hong Kong but I hesitate to pontificate on the subject. However, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that while on one hand we must adopt a very strong attitude to the Chinese Government about their wrongs and our rights, on the other hand it would be wrong to the people of England and Hong Kong to allow the idea to get abroad that we shall be far easier in allowing millions of Chinese to come here from Hong Kong?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the matter. It was emphasised by a number of hon. Members last week that it would be wrong to give the impression that the House was ready to contemplate offering such an open-ended commitment.

    Environment (EC)
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has reconsidered the suggestion that the Council of Europe's concern for a wide range of environmental matters should be transferred to the European Community; and what assessment he has made of whether the 11 member states not part of the Community will endorse that view.
    Mrs. Chalker: I am not aware of any suggestion that the Council of Europe's concern for a wide range of environmental matters should be transferred to the European Community. The Council of Europe is already doing good work on nature conservations. In deciding what new work it should take on, the Council will wish to avoid duplicating work better done elsewhere.
    Mr. Hardy: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will the Minister confirm that the environmental role of the Council of Europe should he broad and continuing, not least because it represents a far greater geographical area than the Community and because it embodies, therefore, the genuine interests of the 11 non-member states, as well as the organisation closely involved with local authorities in Europe? Will she make it clear that any suggestion that its interests should be restricted to nature conservation would be absurd and dangerous? Does she agree with the more considered and acceptable view expressed by the Norwegian chairman in office during the assembly last month?
    Mrs. Chalker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the valued work done by the Council of Europe in many environmental areas is something that we hope will continue and perhaps not only among the 23 existing member states. Perhaps it may have influence further afield because so many of these issues know no national boundaries and no Council of Europe boundaries.
    I have had long talks with Helga Hernes, the Minister who took the questions at the Assembly and I am sure that we can work well together. However, that is not to undermine in any way the great success that my noble Friend Lord Caithness has had in the Environment Council where good sound decisions were made on ivory, on seals, on strengthening the United Nations institutions for environmental work and on the work on climatic change. Great praise has been given to this country for the work that has been done as a result of the Prime Minister's conference in early March. Everybody should he thoroughly involved.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of the duplication that she rightly wishes to avoid comes from the European Parliament, not from the Council of Europe? Does she recognise that the Council of Europe does an immense amount of good work on environmental matters and at a far lower cost to the citizens of Europe?
    Mrs. Chalker: I well understand what my hon. Friend is saying. There is no doubt that the Council of Europe was the initiator of many excellent environmental reforms, but we must be careful not to exclude the need for members of the European Community, working together in the creation of the single market, to take the back-up measures that are definitely necessary in matters of trade. I caution against saying that one institution rather than another should be responsible in any specific area and say, as I have said to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), that where advances can be made to improve the environment, they should be undertaken without duplication by all the bodies involved.
    Mr. Coleman: May I thank the Minister for her attitude to this matter, especially in respect of the way in which the Council of Europe goes about its activities? I hope that she
    902
    will agree on the need to ensure that the Council of Europe does not become demoralised over its excellent work on environmental matters.
    Mrs. Chalker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no intention and no plan that the Members of the Assembly of the Council of Europe should become demoralised in any way by the actions of others, who want to copy many of the things that they have done. The Council should regard that as a compliment. However, there is no doubt also that there is room for the involvement of more than one forum. Such involvement can be achieved without duplication, and I sincerely hope that it will be.

    President Bush
    Mr. Andy Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, when he last had discussions with President Bush; and what matters were discussed.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Together with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I last had discussions with President Bush, and Secretary Baker, on 1 June, during their visit to this country. We discussed East-West relations, the middle east and other regional issues and trade matters.
    Mr. Stewart: Did my right hon. and learned Friend have a chance to review the highly successful outcome of the NATO summit with President Bush when he was in London and did President Bush reiterate the position taken by both Governments about the dangers of a denuclearised Europe?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes, that was one of the topics that naturally assumed an important part in our discussions because President Bush's visit to London followed immediately on the successful NATO summit when we agreed on the essential features, not least the circumstances in which negotiations on short-range nuclear weapons should be contemplated.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: When the Foreign Secretary next meets President Bush, will he raise with him the denial of fundamental human rights in the apartheid system in South Africa? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that would be an appropriate time for both sides to look afresh at the possibility of sanctions?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government and the new American Administration have already expressed their common view of their total condemnation of apartheid and the denial of human rights that that involves. However, we do not draw from that proposition the same conclusion as the hon. Gentleman. We believe that it is most important in the months ahead to keep on course the prospect of the independence of Namibia, in accordance with resolution 435, and to look forward to circumstances in which the South African Government, which will be elected after 7 September, are ready to take the fundamental steps to dismantle apartheid. We do not think that that process would be helped or hastened by any further moves on sanctions.
    Sir Peter Blaker: There are now more than 43,000 Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong. They are arriving at a rate which necessitates the building of two new camps each week to hold them. Will my right hon. and learned

    903
    Friend explain to President Bush that there are many people in this country who find it impossible to understand how the American Administration can justify its argument at Geneva that there should not be a policy of compulsory repatriation of economic migrants to Vietnam, with appropriate guarantees from the Government of Vietnam, when it is the policy of the United States for economic migrants from Haiti who arrive in Florida, to be sent back compulsorily and for the same to be done for economic migrants who arrive from Mexico across the American border?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. Indeed, the Prime Minister and I impressed on President Bush and Secretary of State Baker the extreme gravity of the situation facing Hong Kong as a result of the continuing inflow of Vietnamese boat people. I had the opportunity to raise the issue of Indo-Chinese refugees again yesterday at the Geneva conference, and I put to the representative of the United States the same arguments as my right hon. Friend has now put to me. It is of crucial importance that, aside from any arrangements to handle those classified as refugees—that is something on which some progress may be made at the Geneva conference—there is a recognition of the need to secure a return flow from Hong Kong to Vietnam of those who are not classified as refugees. I had the opportunity of discussing that also in Geneva with the Vietnamese Foreign Minister, and discussions on that topic will be continuing.
    Mr. Kaufman: When the Foreign Secretary next meets President Bush, will he discuss with him the very positive response by President Gorbachev to President Bush's own historic offer on conventional disarmament? Will he discuss, too, with President Bush the historic agreement reached this week in Bonn between the Soviet Union and the Federal Republic of Germany and the statement by the Soviet Foreign Ministry spokesman that an agreement with France is next on the cards—that Paris is the next stop? However, that same Soviet spokesman did not think that an agreement with Britain was possible or that Britain was a willing partner. Why is it that, while the United States, France, West Germany and other western allies speak positively and constructively in discussions with the Soviet Union, this country, and especially this Prime Minister, simply whips up the cold war?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman can be relied on to have an insight that is fundamentally mistaken. The series of successful visits by President Gorbachev to western European countries commenced with his visit to this country. Our Government—and nobody more than the Prime Minister—have emphasised the extent to which we welcome President Gorbachev's progress on perestroika. We regard the outcome of his visit to the Federal Republic of Germany in the same light. It is not our practice to issue comprehensive joint declarations of the kind recorded in the Federal Republic this week, but a large number of the matters dealt with in that joint declaration have already been the subject of similar agreements between ourselves and the Soviet Union. The right hon. Gentleman need have no fear. The United Kingdom is not lagging in the prudent promotion of better East-West relations.

    OECD
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters were raised at the most recent summit meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
    Mrs. Chalker: The OECD Ministerial Council covered a wide range of subjects, including macroeconomic developments and policies, structural reform, trade and debt. Environmental issues also featured prominently.
    Mr. Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain is helping Third world countries not only through the quality of its aid programme, but by direct investment in Third world countries and through attempts to open European Community markets to them?
    Mrs. Chalker: Indeed I can. Britain has led the way, with the initiative by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on sub-Saharan debt. We have been cancelling aid debt for the poorest countries—almost £1 billion world-wide. We have led the way in converting loans into grants. We have targeted our aid much better than every before. That is an important help for the developing nations.
    The other aspect that my hon. Friend mentioned was direct investment in developing countries. Between 1984 and 1987, the United Kingdom's direct investment was greater than that of the whole of the rest of the European Community put together.
    Above all, we believe in open trade, world-wide, in giving opportunities to these countries for trade with the European Community and for avoiding fortress Europe.
    Mr. Pike: Can the Minister assure us that urgent consideration will be given to the need for aid for Namibia following independence, especially recognising the debt that it will inherit, which was incurred by the present non-representative Government?
    Mrs. Chalker: We are well aware that Namibia will need support and aid further to that which we already give it. We are working hard to ensure, through our representatives with the United Nations force, that the peace plan stays on course, so that free and fair elections will give independence to Namibia in November and we shall be able to work on a further aid programme thereafter.

    Angola
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports has he received on the process towards internal reconciliation in Angola.
    Mrs. Chalker: We welcome the security conference of Angola's neighbours in Luanda on 16 May and President Dos Santos' announcement of a peace plan for Angola, including a zone of peace along the line of the Benguela railway. We shall continue to encourage African countries in their mediation efforts.
    Mr. Brown: In addition to that answer, does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Nations agreement of last year is most important? Does she not think that we

    905
    should ensure that the United Nations increases the number of observers in Angola, to make sure that the withdrawal of Cuban troops materialises?
    Mrs. Chalker: The Cuban troop withdrawal from Angola is going ahead in accordance with the Geneva protocol. The net withdrawal of 6,885 troops was completed by the end of April. My hon. Friend will probably know that the United Nations has doubled up the monitoring force, because it is by monitoring what is going on that we can assist. I have every confidence that the actions taken by UNAVEM—the United Nations force—will bring about the clear recognition that the plan has been fully executed.

    Panama
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Panama.
    Mr. Eggar: Relations would be improved if General Noriega were to stand down and open the way to democratic government.
    Mr. Arnold: Does my hon. Friend feel that Latin America has made considerable progress towards representative democracy in almost all countries? Do not the actions of General Noriega, this ninth-rate villain, do much to tarnish that reputation? Should not our relationship and that of the European countries towards Panama be modified accordingly, until such time as Panama chucks this viper from its nest?
    Mr. Eggar: I very much agree with my hon. Friend in welcoming the movement towards democracy in Latin America. If, as we all hope, Chile moves to democracy at the end of this year, that will leave only Nicaragua and Panama as non-democratic states.
    Already, together with our European Community partners, we have made a clear statement calling on General Noriega to stand down, to open the way for a peaceful democratic resolution of Panama's problems.

    EC Commissioners
    Mr. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met either of Britain's Commissioners in the European Community; and what was discussed.
    Mrs. Chalker: Following official calls paid on him by the British members of the Commission in December 1988, my right hon. and learned Friend and I have been in contact with them and other members of the Commission on a range of Community issues, and look forward to continuing such contacts.
    Mr. Robertson: When the Minister discusses with the Commissioners the business that is before them, could she read to them part of Herr Genscher's speech to the 40th anniversary meeting of the Deutsch-Englische Gesellschaft in Dusseldorf last week? He said:
    "The Community must be a community for all citizens; it therefore needs a social dimension so that it can evolve into a community of social progress."
    How does that square with the Government's attitude to the social measures that are being put forward? Specifically, how does it square with the veto on Monday on the equality provisions in the Social Minister's council and the Marxist veto on the social charter that the Christian Democratic Union Minister believed was too bland and needed to be sharpened?
    Mrs. Chalker: Of course there is a social dimension to what we do in the Community. Nobody has ever denied that, and that social dimension is the key to improving living standards and working conditions. Getting non-inflationary growth is the way to do that. We shall not achieve that if many of the aspects of the so-called social charter are carried through. We must do everything that we can to continue the fall in unemployment that we have had in this country and throughout the Community. That will be done by deregulation. It is not done by heaping on to business restrictions that are not necessary to improve our economic life.

Foreign Affairs Council
The following Question stood upon the Paper:
Mr. Rowlands: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what was discussed at the last meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council.
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The Foreign Affairs Council met in Luxembourg on 12 June. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I represented the United Kingdom. The Council discussed preparations for the Madrid European Council, which will take place on 26–27 June. The Council agreed the mandate for negotiation with the Soviet Union on a trade and economic co-operation agreement. It also discussed special measures for the French overseas departments, and commissioned further work.
Ministers also met in the framework of political co-operation. They expressed profound concern at the brutal action taken by the Chinese authorities against unarmed civilian demonstrators, and agreed to keep in close touch about the action which member Governments are taking in response. Statements were issued recording the concern of the Twelve at the renewal of the state of emergency in South Africa and their support for the work of the committee of three Arab Heads of State in the Lebanon. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.
I also briefed our partners fully on the great problems confronting Hong Kong as a result of the growing influx of Vietnamese boat people, and warned that this was creating an intolerable situation. Ministers also had a two-hour meeting with Foreign Ministers of the front-line states covering a wide range of questions concerning southern Africa. My right hon. Friend attended a Co-operation Council with Algeria.
Mr. Rowlands: Is it not disgraceful that we have had to force this statement out of the Secretary of State? Will he give us an assurance that in future he will volunteer such statements, bearing in mind the enormous nature of the issues facing the Foreign Affairs Council? Is he aware that the communities that I represent see 1992 not only as an opportunity for development, but as a potential charter for the exploitation of workers? People know that they are behind on social insurance, maternity benefits and other benefits compared with many of our European partners. In that context, will the Secretary of State try to persuade the rest of the Government to consider their absolutely negative view about the social charter?
Mr. Howe: The first point raised by the hon. Gentleman has generally been a matter for discussion and consultation between Government and Opposition parties. Certainly I am happy to listen to representations about it. There has not been an oral statement for a couple of years. It is important to recognise that Community matters already put substantial pressure on parliamentary time. I think that we have had 13 scrutiny debates in the last five weeks. I shall certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's point. The Council did not have as large an agenda as usual, and it is convenient for me to answer in this way because there is a question about the matter on the Order Paper.
908
The hon. Gentleman asked about the social charter. There is an important and fundamental point to be understood by the House and more widely. It is that the Government acknowledge the need for social dimension to economic policy. It is our contention that one of the most important social dimensions has been our success in dealing with unemployment. The fact that we have been able to achieve the growth of more jobs in the United Kingdom than in all the other European Community countries put together is a measure of the success of the social dimension of our economic policy.
Regardless of party, hon. Members in all parts of the House would rise up in protest if it was argued that the whole range of matters now on the agenda of the social charter were to be the subject of common Community policies imposed on us by Community legislation and were no longer to be matters for discussion by the House as matters of its national competence.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my right hon. And learned Friend confirm that his colleagues in the Council were as well aware as he that the demonstrations in China began with a relatively small-scale demonstration asking for conversations about the future of education? Will he and they use their best endeavours to explain to the Chinese Government that there is no point in sending millions of students to university if, having aroused their intellectual curiosity, they then machine-gun them down in the streets when they ask questions of the Government? Will he and they exert every possible pressure to rescue those students who are at present in danger of their lives for having done no more than ask questions of their Government?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The insight offered by my hon. Friend is central to the arguments that will be discussed in the Community at the meeting on Monday. We deplore the brutality that is being used, particularly directed at students. We recognise that one of the most important features of what has happened in China in the last decade has been the opening of the minds of Chinese students and of those in Chinese academic institutions. That is why I have told the House this afternoon that we extend special sympathy to Chinese students in this country. The best hope for the future of China may yet spring from the extent to which a generation now rising in that country may be able to re-emerge, championing effective democracy and self-government.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Did any discussions take place for co-ordinated action, limited though it might be, arising out of what has happened in China? For example, one reads that there are queues outside EEC country embassies of Chinese trying to get out. Has there been co-ordinated action in that respect? Is it true that, while some embassy visa sections are open, the British visa section is closed?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The central question raised by the right hon. Gentleman was referred to in my statement, when I said that we had agreed to keep in close touch about the action that member Governments were taking in response to the matters to which he referred. We were able to express a common view on our attitude towards high-level visits, arms supplies and Chinese students in our countries. We shall seek to co-ordinate our actions, so far as we can, in that way.

909
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question about visas and applications for visas in Peking is that, as the House knows, the size of our mission was reduced at the same time as dependents were withdrawn last week. We are now giving practical consideration to the scale and pace at which that should be restored.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: While I fully support what my right hon. and learned Friend has said about the Socialist nonsenses of the social charter, may I ask him to explain how on earth he can stop them if, as seems to be the case, the majority of member states want them, and the Commission presents them as majority vote issues under the Single European Act?
As we now see a real threat to all the splendid achievements of Her Majesty's Government, will my right hon. and learned Friend be prepared to discuss with our European Community partners the possibility of developing a two-tier Europe, which would be good for us and good for them?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: We shall be challenging any unjustified extension of either the role or the competence of European Community institutions along the lines I have stated. A large number of the topics foreshadowed in the draft of the social charter do not fall within the area covered by majority voting.
We shall be seeking to limit the impact of any possible social charter, so that it does not infringe upon any essential features of our own structure, because it is most important that we do that. We shall be doing that by advancing the arguments that I have been advancing in the Housing this afternoon. However, to believe that it would make sense to do that by consciously espousing the idea of a two-tier Europe, with our country setting itself in some outer tier, would be to set ourselves on a path that has been consistently rejected by the House ever since we joined the European Community in 1976.
Miss Joan Lestor: The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said that the council regretted the renewal of the state of' emergency in South Africa. Bearing in mind the speed with which the British Government condemned the alleged breach by SWAPO, of the United Nation's resolution 435, will the Foreign Secretary say whether, included in that expression of regret, there was any reference to the statements—which I have here—made in Namibia that, should SWAPO win the elections in Namibia, the South African State Security Council plans to sabotage independence in that state?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not know what anonymous statements the hon. Lady may be quoting. The statement that we have tabled in the Library was to reaffirm our condemnation of the system of apartheid, and to call for the liberation of Mandela and other political leaders and the commencement of a dialogue with other political organisations. We also discussed the crucial importance of proceeding with the implementation of resolution 435 and, with the front-line states, emphasised the obligation and interest of all of us to ensure compliance with resolution 435 not merely by SWAPO but by any organisation or body under the control or command of the South African Government. We all have, and emphasise, the same objective—fair and free elections in Namibia at the earliest possible opportunity.
Mr. Neil Thorne: Was the trade and transit dispute between India and Nepal discussed? Both the European Community and the British Government give substantial aid to both those friendly countries, so it is of considerable concern to us all that such a dispute is continuing, when it is causing wastage of these scarce resources. Is there any hope of an early meeting between those countries with the aim of achieving a satisfactory and honourable resolution of the disputes?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's interest in the future relations between Nepal and India, both countries with which we have good and friendly relations. We share his interests in the matters to which he has referred. The topic was not discussed among Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg this week, but I am sure that all would share our interest in looking for an early resolution of these problems in the most friendly and conciliatory fashion.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary expand somewhat on the discussion that took place at the Foreign Affairs Council on the subject of the Vietnamese refugee problem—the boat people—in Hong Kong? Is there any hope of our sister European countries accepting responsibility for this terrible and intractable problem, which is getting worse week by week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There was not a great deal of discussion on this in the Foreign Affairs Council, but I took the opportunity to alert my colleagues to the gravity and importance of the problem. It has been more fully discussed at the conference taking place in Geneva yesterday and today. A number of them have taken, are taking and will be taking direct responsibility for the resettlement of additional numbers of refugees. That is one of the categories that the conference has been summoned to consider. I cannot remember the exact number, but some are making additional commitments in that respect. A more difficult category is that of non-refugees—economic migrants—for whom virtually everyone sees the necessity of their being relocated back in their homeland.
Mr. Michael Colvin: My right hon. and learned Friend will no doubt acknowledge the progress that is being made towards the liberalisation of air transport within Europe. Will he give an undertaking that, when the Foreign Affairs Council next meets, the question of liberalisation within Europe will be on the agenda, as it has implications for air service agreements with third countries—most notably, the United States of America? If it will be given increasing rights to fly within the European Community, it is most important that European countries are given reciprocal rights to fly within America.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend raises an important set of related points, but they would be more appropriately discussed in due course by the Transport Council rather than by the Foreign Affairs Council. However, I shall certanly bring my hon. Friend's points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. George Robertson: We are all grateful to whoever is responsible for this rare if limited opportunity to question the Foreign Secretary about the top European Council of Ministers meeting. The last

911
occasion on which the Government offered an oral statement on this, the most important of the European Community's Council of Ministers, despite many requests since by the Opposition, was on 17 December 1986—two and a half years and more than 30 monthly meetings ago, which is clearly unacceptable to the House.
We welcome the discussion on the events in China for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) asked last week, and the opportunity that all member states had to act in unison and to condemn the cold brutality of the Chinese Government over the past two weeks. We acknowledge that the key business of the Foreign Affairs Council was to fix the agenda for the Madrid summit, but it promises that Britain will once again be on the sidelines—isolated and marginalised by the confusions and divisions in the Government over the European monetary system and by the Government's neanderthal approach to the social dimensions of 1992.
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether rumours that the Government will accept phase 1 of the Delors plan on European monetary union are true, and whether No. 10 Downing street has yet rubber-stamped that which he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are clearly cooking up? Why is it that Britain, alone of the 12 Community countries, believes that the social charter is evil, bureacratic and unnecessary—when even the Conservative Right-wing German Minister of Employment, Mr. Norbert Blüm, believes that it is too bland and needs to be toughened up? Is it not the case that, because the Government insist on ignoring the 60 per cent. of British people who, according to this week's poll by the Daily Telegraph support the social charter, they well merit the description of themselves in today's editorial in The Independent:
912
"The Conservatives have waged a wretched, negative and dishonest campaign which, far from uniting the party, has embarrassed most of its candidates"?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that The Times has it spot on when it comments in an editorial:
"The Labour bandwagon is beginning to gather speed"?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that the House is glad to acknowledge the extent to which the hon. Gentleman has broadened his newspaper reading, but we cannot pay tribute to any other aspect of his wisdom. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Council's attitude to the events in China. However, when he turns to the Community's immediate agenda, he does not get it very right. As I told the House, there is a sharp distinction to be made between phase 1 as discussed in the Delors report and phases 2 and 3. That distinction has been made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in all the relevant discussions, and it will be made again at Madrid.
As to the social charter, the hon. Gentleman must understand that some of its provisions represent an attempt to reimpose on this country conditions from which some of his predecessors in the Labour party tried to escape. Some of the social charter's provisions would reproduce those features that Barbara Castle and Harold Wilson tried to remove at the time of "In Place of Strife".
It would be totally foolish and negative for the Government of this country, who have achieved substantial economic progress, and record progress on unemployment, to accept obligations of that kind. The position of the Government and of those representing us in the European elections is positive, united and effective —and that unity and effectiveness will be seen when the results of tomorrow's elections are announced at the weekend.

Food Research (Bristol)
3.49 pm
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the closure announced today of the institute of food research at Bristol, given the continuing rise of food poisoning to near epidemic proportions."
This matter is specific because of the type of research which is conducted at the food laboratories in Bristol. It is important because of the public concern felt by consumers on matters of public health and dietary considerations. It is urgent because the closure was announced this morning at 11 am in Bristol. At the research laboratories in Bristol there are 80 projects— [interruption] I am sorry. This is an important issue, but it is difficult to concentrate on making my application because I cannot hear myself think for the din from the Conservative Benches.
The projects conducted at Langford in the Bristol food research institute cover listeria, and cook-chill proposals are being investigated. The institute carried out research on salmonella poisoning until that was cancelled and has, in the past, conducted research on botulism. The leading authority in that subject is based at the laboratory.
The institute covers work on food safety and quality. The fat content of food is vital in a society which suffers so much from heart disease. It researches food acceptability and food processing. It is important because of the increasing risk to health from microbial contamination, the emergence of new pathogenic organisms and because consumers prefer fresh foods, which means that the traditional methods of preserving foods cannot be used. Changes in people's dietary patterns means increased hazards associated with increased consumption of some foods. A reliable Government have a duty to ensure that we can consume safe food.
This is urgent, given the context of yet another problem related to food consumption in this country. There are 120 scientists who will lose their jobs by December 1990, and much of the research will not be transferred to other institutions. This is happening at a time when France and Spain are increasing their research and recognising that it is necessary for food safety and the decent health of the consuming public. Our Government are pursuing the trend of making the consumer less safe. The food industry cannot be trusted to ensure that the correct priorities are adopted.
The closure of this institution is foolhardy, callous and, given the current environment, cavalier. It shows scant regard for the best interests of the consumers. I hope that we shall be granted an emergency debate.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The closure announced today of the institute of food research at Bristol, given the continuing rise of food poisoning to near epidemic proportions."
I have listened with care to what the hon. Lady has said. As she knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether the
914
matter should be given precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that the matter raised does not meet the criteria of Standing Order No. 20; therefore, I cannot submit her application to the House.
Mr. Robin Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, during the exchanges on botulism, I asked the Secretary of State for Health whether the Government would now reverse the cuts in research into food safety that threatened the Bristol laboratory. In his reply the Secretary of State asserted that the laboratory was
"doing no research of any kind relevant to botulism."
This morning I received a letter from the Secretary of State admitting that that was clearly a mistake. I also learned that the Bristol laboratory was one of only two centres in Britain carrying out research into botulism, and that its modelling technique to predict the growth of the organism was relevant to all foodstuffs, not just meat.
In such circumstances, Mr. Speaker, would it not be normal for the Secretary of State to make a personal statement to put the record straight for Hansard? It is important that the record on the Bristol laboratory's work should be put straight, in view of this morning's announcement that the centre is to close and its work on botulism is to be dispersed to Reading, which will reduce the food research staff from 560 to 440. The House will want to know how the Government can justify the extraordinary timing of that decision.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): It may be helpful if I share with the House the contents of the letter that I sent to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), with an apology for the mistake that I made on the second occasion on which the subject was raised yesterday, which has caused some confusion.
The question of the research laboratory at Bristol was first raised by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn). I answered his question accurately when I said:
"The point about the Bristol research centre to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be answered in more detail by my right hon. Friends with responsibility for that, but I am informed that that research centre is not concerned with any work on food safety relevant to this outbreak."
To the best of my knowledge, that remains accurate.
The question was raised again later by the hon. Member for Livingston. When I reached the relevant part of my reply to him, I began to be interrupted by hon. Members who speak on agricultural matters—first by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and then, I have to say, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, who was sitting behind me.
The hon. Member for Livingston has taken one phrase from what column 709 of Hansard makes it clear was an interrupted and incomplete answer. By the time the interruptions had finished, I had said:
"That must be taken up with the responsible Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will have to deal with that … I remain reasonably confident—I look to my right hon. Friend for advice"—
which I was doing
"that it is doing no research of any kind relevant to botulism." — [Official Report, 13 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 704–09.]
I said in the letter to the hon. Members for Southport and for Livingston that that was plainly a mistake and that my answer had been incomplete. I had intended to say that the centre was doing no research relevant to this outbreak. Following the restructuring that has been taking place, and on the decision of the Agricultural and Food Research

915
Council, an autonomous and independent body, work is being transferred from Bristol to Norwich and Reading, and the Bristol expert Terry Roberts is transferring to one of the other centres with his team.
As I made clear yesterday, the Government have no intention of withdrawing funding from the research on botulism, which is to be transferred to one of the institute's other laboratories. On the contrary, we are strengthening and expanding the work on food safety that has hitherto been done at Bristol.
I can only say that I hope that what I have said has cleared up the confusion. Obviously I speak on behalf of the Government, although this is not my departmental responsibility. However, hon. Members who feel strongly that the work would be better done at Bristol than at Norwich or Reading should address their detailed questions either to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science or to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. We are increasing the amount of research being done, and I leave the matter of the location to those who wish to explore the matter further.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will take a point of order from the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), as he was involved in this matter yesterday.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Further to that point of order. The Secretary of State has sent me a letter, for which I thank him. Can he confirm unreservedly that no research or experiments are now being carried out at Bristol on the present outbreak of botulism?
Mr. Clarke: A great number of inquiries are being made about the outbreak. If they throw up the need for further research into how hazelnut puree became infected, I have no doubt that that research will be financed. The decision about Bristol has been taken by the relevant research council. It has decided to transfer the work from Bristol to Norwich or Reading. There will be increased expenditure on some aspects of food safety research. The work on botulism is being transferred. A great expert on botulism, who is based at Bristol, is moving with his team to one of the other two centres. That team will wish to consider the impact on its work of the outbreak that we are suffering at the moment, which I trust will soon be abated.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A different point of order?
Mr. Cryer: Yes, a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. It relates to statements made to the House.
The Government are clearly intent on curtailing statements. Today, we have had three instances. The statement on the Foreign Affairs Council was based on an extension of Question Time. Consequently, according to the general rules, you were unable to call the whole range of hon. Members who wished to speak. On a statement, that would have been quite normal. The exchange, therefore, was very limited.
The question that has been raised now—which was raised yesterday by means of a private notice question and
916
today by means of a Standing Order No. 20 application —has been answered in what can only be described as a very shifty way by the Minister. He ought to have come here and made a statement in order to allow a wide range of cross-examination. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that all the annunciators in this House carry a message that there is to be a statement by a Minister. Many hon. Members who may not be here would have wished to be here to ask questions. It is a real denial of Members' rights to treat the House in this way.
All that I seek from you, Mr. Speaker, is an assurance that you will keep the matter under review. There is a very real danger that, with their enormous majority of over 100, the Government are treating the processes of democracy with contempt and eroding the conventions of this place, which call for statements at regular intervals from Ministers so that hon. Members can have a proper opportunity—without placing a strain on you, Mr. Speaker, to curtail questions—to cross-examine Ministers, particularly when they are behaving so badly and when their methods of operation are so shoddy.
Ms. Primarolo rose—
Mr. Max Madden rose—
Mr. Speaker: Let me deal with one point of order at a time. I do not think that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is right about what he called the statement on Question 18. It was a question from one of his hon. Friends, which might well have been reached. The fact that it was taken at the end of questions gave the House a greater opportunity to discuss it. That is a helpful procedure when matters of great importance arise. As to the hon. Gentleman's other point, the Secretary of State has today corrected some information that he gave to the House yesterday. I think that the whole House should applaud that.
Mr. Madden: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of the rights of hon. Members? It relates to statements. It is rumoured that tomorrow the Government intend to make a statement about the establishment of a DNA testing scheme. We have been waiting many months for the statement. It is likely to be extremely controversial, because it will dash the hopes of many families who wish to be united and reunited in this country.
I know that this is not a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, but as many hon. Members from all sides of the House will be preoccupied elsewhere tomorrow, I think that it would be quite wrong for the Government to try to slip through a very controversial statement in a House with a very slim attendance. If you are approached by the Government about the matter, could you strongly advise them to hold this statement, which has been on ice for at least nine months, until Monday, so that they can be held accountable on Monday for decisions which they are trying to slip through the House when many hon. Members will be away?
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you confirm that tomorrow is a normal sitting day for the House of Commons and that it is therefore the right of all hon. Members to attend and to put any questions that they may wish on any statement that is made? If the hon. Member

917
for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) is skiving off and will not be here to speak up for his constituents, that is a problem for him, not for the Government.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall deal with one matter at a time. I have no knowledge of the rumours that go around this place. As we approach July, they always seem to accelerate. I do not know anything about that matter. Friday is sometimes said to be a thin day in the House; Thursday usually is a busy day.
Ms. Primarolo: Further to my original point of order arising out of the Minister's comments, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the Minister's statement that all the work from Bristol will be transferred to Norwich or Reading is incorrect. I ask him to take hack that statement and reconsider it, to save him having to apologise to the House tomorrow and put the record straight, yet again.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. With great respect, in using points of order, hon. Members are trying to question me about a press notice issued yesterday by the Agricultural and Food Research Council—a body for which I am not responsible, as hon. Members know. In case the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) is in any doubt, I have said, on the advice of those who are responsible for this matter, that the Government have no intention of withdrawing funding from the research on botulism which is being transferred to the institute's other laboratories. Today, the Agricultural and Food Research Council said:
"more will be spent on research into Salmonella and Listeria".
I advise hon. Members, in their interests as well as mine, that if they are seriously interested in questions concerning the laboratory and transfer of work from Bristol to Norwich or Reading, they should direct them to one or other of the Secretaries of State responsible for this matter. All they need do is table a question to whichever Secretary of State they wish.
Dr. David Clark: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Secretary of State has acknowledged, there are Ministers who are responsible for the statement which was issued today about the closure of the institute of food research at Bristol. As he said, it is to them that we should address our questions. Given the uncertainty and interest in the House—which is obvious to everyone—because 120 top scientists will lose their jobs, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to use your good offices to ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to come to the House later this evening so that we can cross-examine him on this important issue which affects public health and food safety.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me, but I am sure that the point has been heard.
Mr. Frank Cook rose—
Mr. Speaker: Final point of order, please.
Mr. Cook: Further to the original point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid that the Secretary of State appears to have heaped confusion upon ignorance. We are now in some difficulty in determining who should answer our questions. In his statement yesterday, the Secretary of State for Health said that the incidence of botulism in this country was significantly less than in other countries. His colleague, however, is issuing statements saying that the food irradiation which occurs in other countries desirable, so we should adopt it here.
I want the Secretary of State—whichever one is responsible—to bear in mind the fact that clostridium botulinum is not susceptible to irradiation, but that other bacteria—yeasts and moulds—are, and Ministers should know that the bacterium can grow much more virulently without competitors. The Secretary of State for Health should ensure that either he covers this matter or his mate does.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that that has been heard by those who are responsible.

Creation of Unitary Local Authorities
4.8 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to merge regional, county, borough and district councils to create unitary all purpose local authorities in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I was reminded of ten-minute Bills when I recently tried to fly a kite with my children. Much anxious preparation was followed by a few minutes of fitful flight. It fell to the ground and no one ever heard of it again. Although I have no illusions about this Bill becoming law at the end of the Session, I am confident that it or something like it will eventually become law.
Continuing the analogy of the kite, if I had left my garden and walked up a hill on top of the Lincolnshire wolds, I would have had a magnificent view and would have understood what lay behind the Bill. From the top of the Lincolnshire wolds there is a fine view of Lincoln cathedral to the south, the Grimsby dock tower to the north and the cooling tower of the Trent valley power stations. There is a fine view also of no fewer than nine local authority areas: three county councils and six district councils. If one of my constituents had been standing alongside me on the top of the Lincolnshire wolds, he would have been confused about the responsibilities of those local authorities. Even had a councillor been standing there with me, I suspect that he would have made a few mistakes. Therefore, reform is timely.
It is not good enough simply to say that local government has enough on its plate with the community charge, competitive tendering and education reform. After all, the Government began the process by creating unitary local authorities in the Greater London area and the metropolitan counties. Reform is needed.
I shall not fall into the trap of trying to impose a uniform structure throughout the country, as happened in 1974, when it was imposed in many areas without prior consultation or local justification. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is in his place. We know all about the problem in Lincolnshire. One third of it was torn away to form the unloved county of South Humberside. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) reminded me the other day that the boundary of that new county was moved 20 miles to the north following one session with the then Secretary of State, simply to appease local feeling. That is not the right way to deal with local government.
Above all, my Bill proposes consultation and local options, not national uniformity. Let the people decide, if necessary through a referendum. What is right in one part of the United Kingdom is not necessarily right in another. I happen to favour unitary local authorities. They can be justified on the bases of understanding by the people, of stable and good management and, above all, of the concentration of power to create strong local government. As a former councillor, I certainly believe in that.
My area should return to what it was before 1974, when there was the Lindsey county council—there was not South Humberside or East and West Lindsey—and people knew where they stood. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government represents a Suffolk seat, and I am not lecturing him on what should be the case there. Perhaps a two-tier authority is more appropriate. In my
920
part of the world, however, a unitary local authority is needed. My Bill seeks to deal with the problem in terms not of revolution, but of evolution. I should have thought that to be a good Conservative philosophy in which we could all believe.
It is interesting that pressure to create unitary local authorities has come not just from Conservative but from Opposition Members. I read with great interest the reports of the Scottish Labour party, which discussed, I think quite sensibly, the possibility of cutting the number of local authorities in Scotland from 65 to 20 single-tier authorities to which people could relate and which they could understand. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), who is also in his seat today, recently moved a Bill for unitary authorities in Wales. I understand that there is considerable cross-party support in Wales for cutting the number of the 37 existing district councils and merging them with county councils.
Interestingly enough, my Bill also refers to Northern Ireland, which currently has 25 squabbling councils with inadequate powers. Perhaps we could overcome some of the problems of sectarian politics in Northern Ireland if we were to create one unitary local authority for the whole Province, based in Belfast, with real powers.
I repeat that it is essential in matters of local government reorganisation not to repeat past mistakes such as those in the Redcliffe-Maud report, which said that local authorities had to be of a certain size and had to perform certain functions across the entire county. I should like, for example, the re-creation of county boroughs in great cities such as Bristol, which is full of local pride. Why does it not have its own council? That also applies to the great cities of Hull, Lincoln and Portsmouth. The concept of county boroughs was something to be proud of, and it is no accident that the great period of local government prestige was that of the county borough.
My Bill lays open all those interesting proposals. It is on the basis of creating strong and effective local government that people can understand and in which they can take part that I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edward Leigh, Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, Mr. Nicholas Bennett, Dr. Ian Twinn, Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. Greg Knight and Mr. John Marshall.

Creation of Unitary Local Authorities
  CREATION OF UNITARY LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  Mr. Edward Leigh accordingly presented a Bill to merge regional, county, borough and district councils to create unitary all purpose local authorities in Great Britain and Northern Ireland: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 June and to be printed [Bill 155.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the two motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Fisheries Act 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments,
That the draft Cereals Marketing Act (Application to Oil Seeds) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.— [Mr. Alan Howarth.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Ordered,
That European Community Documents Nos. 8896/84 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 3rd December 1987, and 4090/86 and the Department's Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda of 6th November 1987 and 3rd December 1987 on trade marks be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.— [Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Orders of the Day

  Local Government and Housing Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  4.16 pm
  Mr. David Blunkett: May I seek the permission of the House to expedite business by taking together all the amendments relating to the companies clauses?
  Mr. Speaker: Would it be for the convenience of the House to take all the amendments relating to clauses 58 to 64 together?
  Mr. Martin Redmond: Object.
  Mr. Speaker: If the House does not agree, we shall have to take the amendments separately. Does the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) mean that?
  Mr. Redmond: Object.

  Local Government and Housing Bill
    Clause 60

      COMPANIES SUBJECT TO LOCAL AUTHORITY INFLUENCE
      Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move amendment No. 293, in page 67, line 23, at end insert—
      '(3A) For the purposes of determining whether any business relationship exists under subsection (3) above, nothing in that subsection shall apply to any single payment by a local authority for a particular purpose where the authority certifies in making the payment that it does not anticipate any recurrence of the type of expenditure concerned.'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 294, in page 67, line 23, at end insert—
      '(3A) In calculating any aggregate for the purposes of subsections (3)(a) or 3(c) above, the amount of any grant, loan, or other advance shall be disregarded where the payment was made before the coming into force of this section.'
      Mr. Blunkett: The amendment deals with the way in which the Bill is formulated in relation to companies. It aims to disentangle what is reasonable and acceptable from what does not make sense to anyone. It further aims to disentangle the position when one-off grants or the allocation of land result in individual companies or trusts being associated with a local authority to such an extent —if more than 20 per cent. of their board members or management committee members are from the local authority or associated with it—that they find themselves designated as influenced companies. If the proportion is more than 50 per cent. they will be regarded as local-authority controlled companies. A one-off grant or a one-off allocation of land should not be treated in that way as it would be reasonable not to infer an association with the local authority in those circumstances.
      Labour Members believe that retrospection should not apply to the way in which resources have been allocated to a company, trust or organisation, so that they are not caught by something that has already happened in terms of influenced or controlled company status.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Amendment No. 293 proposes that the business relationship test will not be satisfied in the case of one-off payments where the local authority concerned has certified that it does not expect a recurrence of the same type of expenditure. The difficulty is that the one-off payment can be for any amount. Indeed, It could be for a sum so large that it more or less covered the entire operation of the company. It is hard to see how such a situation could be regarded as other than a very strong business relationship. Under the terms of the amendment, such a situation would not be caught if the local authority had certified that it did not intend or expect to make further similar payments, although there is no requirement not to make such further payments. In short, we find amendment No. 293 unacceptable.
      Amendment No. 294 proposes that grants provided before the legislation came into force should be disregarded when calculating the business association test. Although that may seem superficially attractive, the crucial point in establishing whether the business relationship exists is whether the link is sufficient to provide the authority with influence, not when the link was established. If accepted, the amendment would mean that numerous companies which could clearly be influenced would be exempt from the proposals. I can assure the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), however, that there can be no requirement to attach such conditions to contracts and such matters awarded before the legislation comes into force.
      We have studied the proposals carefully and we have no wish to undermine the useful working of companies which make a valuable contribution. There are cases, such as housing associations, for which we have made exemptions. Our proposals are an important way to ensure that the rules of propriety in local government are adhered to, although it is still possible to use companies, where appropriate, to serve an appropriate end.
      Mr. Allen McKay: Can the hon. Lady confirm the following? In my area, there is an innovation centre which uses European money and local authority money. Some of its directors are also councillors and the chairman of the company is Lord Mason. The centre serves a most useful purpose in acting as a seed-bed workshop, bringing together ideas and promoting jobs and job opportunities. It is doing excellent work.
      My second example is a mining museum in the constituency of Wakefield, which would not have been set up but for the consortium of local authorities which provided the incentive and financial arrangements initially. Without local authority backing, that museum would not be there, and without local authority backing it is likely to disappear. Surely that is not right. Can the Minister assure us that those examples will be considered carefully before the proposals are carried out?
      Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I can certainly give that assurance. It is not appropriate to set up a company to undermine the capital rules for local authorities, but we accept, recognise and have encouraged many joint partnerships and a company is often the best way in which to proceed. I will look at the cases to which the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) has referred.
      Question put, That the amendement be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 216.

      Division No. 241

      [4.22 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Alton, David

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Anderson, Donald

      Illsley, Eric

      Ashton, Joe

      Janner, Greville

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Battle, John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Beckett, Margaret

      Leighton, Ron

      Beith, A. J.

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Bell, Stuart

      Lewis, Terry

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

      Litherland, Robert

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Livingstone, Ken

      Blunkett, David

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Bradley, Keith

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Buckley, George J.

      McAllion, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      McWilliam, John

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Cartwright, John

      Maxton, John

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Meacher, Michael

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Meale, Alan

      Clay, Bob

      Michael, Alun

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Coleman, Donald

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Murphy, Paul

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      O'Brien, William

      Cox, Tom

      O'Neill, Martin

      Crowther, Stan

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Cryer, Bob

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Cummings, John

      Patchett, Terry

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Pendry, Tom

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Pike, Peter L.

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

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Dixon, Don

      Prescott, John

      Dobson, Frank

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Douglas, Dick

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Richardson, Jo

      Eastham, Ken

      Robertson, George

      Fatchett, Derek

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Fearn, Ronald

      Rooker, Jeff

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Rowlands, Ted

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

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Fisher, Mark

      Skinner, Dennis

      Flannery, Martin

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

      Flynn, Paul

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Snape, Peter

      Foster, Derek

      Soley, Clive

      Foulkes, George

      Spearing, Nigel

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      George, Bruce

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Wall, Pat

      Gould, Bryan

      Wallace, James

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Walley, Joan

      Grocott, Bruce

      Wardell, Gareth fGower;

      Hardy, Peter

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Haynes, Frank

      Winnick, David

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Hinchliffe, David

      Worthington, Tony

      Home Robertson, John

      Hood, Jimmy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Mr. Martin Redmond and

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Mr. Harry Barnes.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Allason, Rupert

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Amos, Alan

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Arbuthnot, James

      Body, Sir Richard

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Atkinson, David

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      925

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Howard, Michael

      Brazier. Julian

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

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

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Burns, Simon

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Burt, Alistair

      Hunter, Andrew

      Butterfill, John

      Irvine, Michael

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Irving, Charles

      Carrington, Matthew

      Jack, Michael

      Carttiss, Michael

      Jackson, Robert

      Chalker Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Janman, Tim

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Chapman, Sydney

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Chope, Christopher

      Jones, Robert B (Harts W)

      Churchill, Mr

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Kilfedder, James

      Colvin, Michael

      Knapman, Roger

      Conway, Derek

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Knowles, Michael

      Couchman, James

      Knox, David

      Cran, James

      Lang, Ian

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Latham, Michael

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

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Day, Stephen

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Devlin, Tim

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Lightbown, David

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lilley, Peter

      Dunn, Bob

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Durant, Tony

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Eggar, Tim

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Evennett, David

      Maclean, David

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Favell, Tony

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Madel, David

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Mans, Keith

      Forman, Nigel

      Marlow, Tony

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Forth, Eric

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Franks, Cecil

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      French, Douglas

      Mills, Iain

      Fry, Peter

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Gale, Roger

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Gardiner, George

      Mudd, David

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Gill, Christopher

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Norris, Steve

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Gorst, John

      Page, Richard

      Gow, Ian

      Paice, James

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Pawsey, James

      Gregory, Conal

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Grist, Ian

      Price, Sir David

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Hague, William

      Riddick, Graham

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

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

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Harris, David

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Hayes, Jerry

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Hayward, Robert

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Shelton, Sir William

      Heddle, John

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Shersby, Michael

      Hill, James

      Sims, Roger

      Hind, Kenneth

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      926

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Squire, Robin

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Waller, Gary

      Stevens, Lewis

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Ward, John

      Stokes, Sir John

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Watts, John

      Summerson, Hugo

      Wells, Bowen

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Wheeler, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Wilkinson, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

      Tredinnick, David

      Mr. Michael Fallon.

      Trippier, David

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move amendment No. 297, in page 67, line 31, at end insert
      `and holds his position within the company, or voting rights in relation to it, by virtue of an appointment by the authority'
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 298, in page 67, line 32, at end insert 'and holds his position within the company, or voting rights in relation to it, by virtue of an appointment by the authority.'
      Mr. Blunkett: I should like to draw attention to the comments of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce on this part of the Bill. The association has expressed grave anxiety, not about the Government's intention to close what they describe as loopholes—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Blunkett: The disturbance was not the fault of the people around me on the Front Bench. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me.
      The Association of British Chambers of Commerce is concerned, not about the Government's intention to close loopholes in the ability of local authorities to raise and spend capital outside the restrictions that exist in the form of capital regulations, but about the impact that this and other parts of the Bill relating to companies will have. It believes that one set of restrictions will have a chain reaction in other areas and it is worried that the valuable partnership which has been developing between local authorities and the private sector throughout the country may be damaged.
      The association believes that the intentions expressed strongly by the Department of Trade and Industry and less strongly by the Department of the Environment to support this partnership may be undermined by regulations that seek to achieve a goal by what the association describes as
      "holding up one's trousers by putting on braces, attaching a belt, tying them up with string and then ensuring that the person cannot move his legs."
      In terms of the rupture of this partnership, the association might have mentioned applying a truss, too.
      As drafted, the Bill ensures that not only is a loophole to be closed, but a plethora of measures are to be used to prevent local authorities and the private sector from getting together to implement perfectly reasonable regeneration policies that provide jobs for men and women in the most deprived areas of our country —an objective

      927
      that I believe all hon. Members would applaud. Partnership arrangements ensure that unity of purpose emerges from the work of local authorities with their local business sectors, in the best interests of their communities. The two go together: market forces and reliance on the private sector alone cannot work; nor can a wholly socially owned sector of the economy provide for all our needs. We must recognise that this partnership will enhance the living standards and lives of people. We need unity of purpose in social policy—investing in meeting needs, in training and education and in providing infrastructure and economic regeneration, and in the stimulus to the private sector which will result.
      We believe that there is a thrust of policy in local areas across the country which mirrors the progressive and useful policies which have been adopted in places such as the Federal Republic of Germany, France and Italy, where the partnership between the local area and the private sector has yielded considerable fruit. That is why we and the chambers of commerce are worried about how the restrictions will apply to local authorities' capital programmes which are involved in joint companies or trusts, and about the chain reaction that will be touched off between one group of people and another. That is simply because, having been drawn into and having served on the board of management committee of a company, they will, by some sort of guilt by association, affect other such companies.
      We recognise that the Government amendments go a little way towards accepting that, in the case of influenced companies which I described earlier, it would be right to restrict the knock-on effect. Our amendment asks the Government to accept the principle, which in Government amendments is partially accepted, that in the case of influenced and controlled companies, serving on one company should not in any way have an effect on one's activities in other areas.
      Later in the debate when I hope to avoid making a speech similar to this one, we shall deal with a group of amendments which attempt to ensure that the restrictions promoted by Government amendments Nos. 31 and 281 can be refined still further. That refinement will mean that development by a local authority of a joint company will not result in the people who serve on it disqualifying themselves from independence from the local authority and will ensure that the companies and trusts with which they are associated escape from influenced or controlled status.
      By serving on one company—for example, a combined heat and power scheme which might be adjudged to be influenced—people engaging in their normal practice as managers or employees elsewhere should not be placed in a position where anything else they serve on will automatically be judged to be an influenced or controlled company. That is not acceptable and does not make sense in terms of allowing enterprise and innovation to flourish. As the Association of British Chambers of Commerce rightly says, it will make those who are involved wary of taking part in joint ventures. That means that they will be unable to play a part even in normal community activity about which they previously may have had no qualms. Such activity could create influenced or controlled status for the bodies on which such people serve.
      928
      As a consequence, any expenditure by a local authority on a company, even if the money is raised in the private sector, will be looked upon as part of the capital credit controls in the Bill. Local authorities and many other bodies will find themselves enmeshed in the maze, in the net that is being woven around this area of activity. That is why our amendments also seek to ensure that the 20 per cent. or above limit on those serving on a company or trust is lifted. That will mean that influence will not start to be designated at that level. Just because one fifth of those on a management board or trust of a company happen to be associated with a local authority should not automatically bring that company within the capital restraints and credit limits of the local authority.
      Association and the formulae for influence and control should not apply where more than one local authority is involved. Someone taking part in his own time in the activities of a concern and who works at a senior level in a neighbouring local authority could trigger the machanism for influence or control. That is because that person would breach the 20 or 50 per cent. limit on the number of people on the management board or trust. That is extraordinary and during the debate, sooner rather than later, we hope to be able to put it right.
      We recognise the Government's ideological obsession with the market economy and their desire to exclude local authorities from as much as possible of the joint activity that is taking place. They also want to ensure that, while the private sector can raise as much as it likes from the market, the public sector cannot. However, even in the Government's terms, these proposals go too far and that is why we seek to amend them.
      4.45 pm
      It would be quite wrong if people who genuinely believed that they were excluded suddenly found themselves included. It is not right that just because a company has a contractual arrangement with a local authority someone who works for that company should be affected in any way by the Bill. For example, a cleaner working for a contracting firm should not suddenly find that his presence on a joint body or company triggers the mechanisms that I have described. That is beyond the bounds of reasonableness. The Government amendments would not deal with such a situation but ours would, and that is why we are arguing that common sense should prevail.
      No one outside the House engaged in business or commerce or in a local authority of any persuasion is arguing that the restrictions should be as tight as they are or that the levels of direction from the centre should be as great as those that are proposed. Tragically, in the media there is a lack of awareness of what will happen when this part of the Bill becomes law. How many people outside are aware that virtually at a stroke it will destroy the local authority-run public transport sector? It will do that by undermining the ability of local authorities logically to invest in public transport, because any such company that is influenced or controlled will automatically fall within the credit limits. That will wipe out the public expenditure investment in other local authority service areas.
      We are asking the Government to be reasonable. I know that the House has much to deal with and that we shall deal with major issues that everybody wishes to debate. I wish that as much attention could be directed to the provisions dealing with the impact on partnerships or

      929
      those dealing with the impact on rents and the local authority rented sector as will be directed to dog registration. However, that is the way the House works and the way in which the media view things. I hope that, with the assistance of my hon. Friends, I shall be able to keep my later speeches brief.
      Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The speech by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) again shows a great deal of misrepresentation of our proposals. It is absolutely clear that the Government must act when a company has been set up in order to undermine the capital rules. The Government must also act when such a company or a local authority company disregards the propriety and standards that a local authority would apply. We have no wish to undermine or to put in jeopardy a great range of useful and productive companies that are based on partnership between public and private sectors.
      Consider just one area of misrepresentation. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not think that where only 20 per cent. of the members of a company board were linked with a local authority the company should be treated as influenced by the authority. Nor do we. We are proposing that that should happen only when both that has occurred and when half or more of the company's business is associated with the same local authority, or where there is some other similar test of a close business relationship with the same authority.
      It may not be possible to discuss in detail all the amendments that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have tabled on this issue. Perhaps we should welcome or feel sad about that. But a number of them reveal a misunderstanding about the detail of what we propose and the way in which they will operate. I assure the hon. Gentleman and those who have expressed concern that there are areas where individuals or categories of companies will be exempted either permanently or temporarily. We have discussed a number of specific cases and in virtually every case a solution has been found.
      The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) referred to two companies in his area, the Yorkshire mining museum trust and the Barnsley business innovation centre. I assure him that there have been discussions with both of those companies, which seem satisfied with the outcome. We are prepared to listen. We shall be bringing forward regulations to deal with the detail of many of the proposals.
      The hon. Member for Brightside would like to change the association test with a local authority to that of appointment. That may superficially seem attractive, but in many companies which are clearly subject to local authority influence the authority did not appoint anybody to the company.
      It is easy for two local authority officers—a chief executive and a treasurer, for example—to form a company with themselves being the two founder members and directors. The articles of association then provide that all future members of the company shall be admitted by the board of directors and that all members of the company shall be directors. The two officers admit a number of councillors, and the two then resign. The membership and hoard of the company are then composed exclusively of councillors, but the local authority has not
      930
      made any of the appointments. I hope the hon. Gentleman will appreciate how important it is that we take the steps that the Government are proposing.
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brightside for referring to amendments that we shall be moving to address concerns expressed by the British Chamber of Commerce, an issue raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson.) They will ensure that people who provide their services voluntarily as directors and secretaries to local authority control companies will not be regarded as associated with the parent authority by virtue of that connection alone.
      I hope I have assured the House that these are important measures, that they are necessary and that statements about adverse effects have in some cases been mischievously circulated and have no justification.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 31 in page 67, line 33, after 'time' insert
      'both an employee and either'.
      No. 32 in page 67, line 34, leave out `or subject to the influence'.
      No. 281 in page 67, line 38, leave out 'professional or managerial services' and insert

      '(i) advice with regard to the authority's interest in any company (whether existing or proposed to be formed), or

      (ii) advice with regard to the management of an undertaking or the development of land by a company (whether existing or proposed to be formed) with which it is proposed that the authority should enter into any lease, licence or other contract or to which it is proposed that the authority should make any grant or loan, or

      (iii) services which facilitate the exercise of the authority's rights in any company (whether by acting as the authority's representative at a meeting of the company or as a director appointed by the authority or otherwise)'.

      —[Mrs. Virginia Bottomley.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 295 in page 67, line 46, after first 'in', insert
      'a branch or constituency section of.'—[Mr. Blunkett.]
      Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 296 in page 67, line 46, after 'body', insert
      'in the area of the authority'.—[Mr. Blunkett.]
      Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

      Clause 61

        REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPANIES UNDER CONTROL OR SUBJECT TO INFLUENCE OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES
        Amendments made: No. 33 in page 68, line 23, leave out
        'The Secretary of State may by order'
        and insert
        'In order to secure compliance, in relation to companies subject to the influence of local authorities, with provisions made by virtue of subsection (1) above, an order under that subsection may'.
        No. 34 in page 68, line 36, leave out from 'may' to 'obtain' in line 37 and insert
        `make provision requiring a company or local authority to'.—[Mrs. Virginia Bottomley.]

      New Clause 19

        RENT REBATE SUBSIDY
        '() (1) Each local authority in England and Wales shall receive central Government subsidy to cover the full cost of rent rebates paid out by them in any financial year.

        (2) Any rent rebate subsidy payable to a local authority in England and Wales shall be credited to a revenue account which is not the Housing Revenue Account or the Housing Repairs Account.'.—[Mr. Soley.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Clive Soley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        The new clause would guarantee that local authorities received central Government subsidy to cover the full cost of rent rebates. My hon. Friends and I regard this as an important proposal because it is designed to counter a classic example of the Government trying to get the poor to subsidise the poorest.
        The new clause deals with two issues. First, it would mean the reimbursement of local authorities in full as opposed to the present 97 per cent. level of the rents they subsidise. Secondly, it would ensure that rent rebate subsidy remained a separate and distinct form of central Government subsidy. It would involve crediting the subsidy separately to the housing revenue account.
        When the Government originally told local authorities to take on responsibility for housing benefit, considerable reservations were expressed about that requirement. Indeed, the way in which the instruction was forced on local authorities caused mayhem in the administration of many authorities, and led to difficulties being experienced by some tenants in attempting to get the subsidy due to them, for which many of them had paid over the years through their taxes.
        In addition, the Government gave a commitment that the housing benefit subsidy would be paid in full by the Government. The then Minister responsible for social security matters in 1982 said that housing benefit subsidy, although administered by local authorities, would be refunded to them by central Government. That commitment was undermined when the sum was reduced to 97 per cent., although most people took the view that there was no point in complaining about a reduction of 3 per cent. That was the thin edge of the wedge, however, and today local authorities have to pick up much more of the bill.
        We are here discussing the principle that resonsibility for the relief of poverty should rest with the taxpayer and not be transferred to local people. Otherwise, the person in one house earning an average or even below the average income may, due to the way in which the new system is structured, be subsidising a next door neighbour receiving full housing benefit because he is unemployed. That must be unfair because, as I said at the outset, it means the poorer sections of society subsidising the very poorest.
        The Government are deliberately confusing the funding of housing and the funding of income maintenance. There is a strong case for subsidising housing generally by various means, as we have done in the past—funding revenue, capital, and so on—and there is a strong case for funding people through income maintenance. But there is no case for blurring the distinction between the two so that the one becomes confused with the other.
        All other countries of which I am aware pay a decent subsidy for housing, enabling people to rent or buy in a
        932
        fairer way than we do in Britain. They do not put the burden on to the poorer sections of society to subsidise the very poorest. Not only does no other country do what the Government propose, but it has not been done here for many years. Indeed, one would probably have to go back to the 19th century to find it being done on a major scale.
        The story does not end there. What is proposed shows the Government's dislike of council tenants. A bizarre aspect of this provision is that is does not apply to housing associaton tenants or to tenants in the private sector. It applies only to council tenants. Why do the Government expect council tenants to subsidise other council tenants out of their rent payments—as distinct from any taxes that they pay—but do not expect anyone else to do the same?
        It is all part of the Government's vitriolic campaign against council tenants. They want them to stop being council tenants. They want to push them into the private sector and they are prepared to adopt any measures to achieve that. If that means bullying them, pushing and shoving them and generally making their lives an economic misery, the Government will do it and they have chosen to do it with this particularly nasty legislation.
        5 pm
        What would happen if the Government pursued such a policy in other sectors? For example, would they expect the recipients of family credit to fund the benefits of other, less well-off people? That is what would be involved if a similar policy were followed. The Government should discuss with local authorities a fairer system to deal with services, and keep housing benefit separate from other housing subsidies. Let us not underestimate the importance of this subsidy.
        Housing benefit is one of the most important sources of income for many people. For example, the average weekly payment for rent rebate in 1988–89 was £15·37. Some 60 per cent. of council tenants are in receipt of housing benefit and about 3·5 million council tenants receive a rent rebate. The majority are pensioners. The Government will recall the mess into which they got themselves a year or so ago when they cut housing benefit for the seventh time. That caused a crisis even in Conservative areas. Pensioners discovered that they were losing £7, £8, £9 or £10 and sometimes even more per week off their incomes. There were desperate scenes, which hon. Members on both sides of the House will remember from their advice surgeries. Elderly people came along and said that they had fought for the country during the war but now could not manage and feared that they might have to go into a hostel. Such scenes make one realise that, although the overall number of people affected is large, it is still a small enough proportion of the population to mean that the Government are prepared to say that they do not care enough to put the problem right.
        I brought to the attention of the Minister some time ago a report of a press conference on the effect of the increased rents when housing was transferred from the council sector to a particular organisation. In that case, some pensioners on a joint income of £150 a week with their separate pensions as well as their state pensions were just outside the level at which they would be entitled to housing benefit, but they were being asked to pay a rent of about £40 a week—in other words, 40 per cent. of their net disposable income was going in rent. If any hon. Member were paying 40 per cent. of his net disposable income in housing costs, be it mortgage payments, rent or anything else, it would

        933
        only be a matter of time before he got into severe economic hardship. Yet, if the couple in my example were in council accommodation—that particular couple were not, but they might be in the future—the Bill would mean that they would be expected to subsidise people on full housing benefit. That is obviously wrong.
        Unlike mortgage income tax relief, housing benefit has been repeatedly cut by the Government. In April 1988, 1 million people lost all entitlement to income and 4 million lost some entitlement. There is a strong case for mortgage income tax relief, but there is also a strong case for a decent subsidy for tenants, whether private or public. There is also a case for a system that is fairer between the rented and purchased sectors, as I have spelt out on a number of previous occasions.
        We cannot do what the Government have been doing recently—continually cutting housing benefit and continually pushing up rent so that people in both the private and the public sector get into greater economic hardship. Now we have the final humiliating insult that those who are already in difficulties, such as those whom I have described, will be asked to subsidise the poorest, who rely totally on housing benefit for their rent. That must be wrong. That is why we are insisting on the new clause.
        Mr. Peter Hardy: I have been looking at this matter in the light of the effects that it is likely to have on my constituency. I have discovered, for example, that retired miners, miners' officials and steelworkers, after a lifetime of hard work and in some cases distinguished military service, are not receiving housing benefit because they have saving levels above the prescribed limit. They are people who live in peace and dignity, but they now face the prospect of having to pay rents that are so high that their savings will rapidly diminish so that they will become recipients of housing benefit. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) made the point that the value of housing benefit is being steadily eroded. This will be a cause of division and people will say that there is no point in saving, or in thrift, so that they can provide for a dignified old age, because if they are fortunate enough to be able to save, they will be penalised if they happen to be council tenants.
        My hon. Friend is right to point out that this arrangement will not apply to housing association tenants. The Minister may say that people will be able to buy their council houses. What do I say to the chap who spoke to me about this the other day? He is in his 70s and has a reasonable level of savings. Does he use all his savings, which were meant to top up his pension and allow him to have a small holiday every so often, in bearing the burden that the Bill will place on him? The Government have been unwise and unfair. They are not encouraging thrift or dignity, but they will encourage bitterness in the housing estates.
        The Minister knows that I have a high regard for him, not least because he has a north of England origin. He may accept the argument that, over the past 10 years, there has been a remarkable increase in division in our society—the division between rich and poor and between the richer areas and the poorer areas. This proposal will compound that division to an extent that I do not believe—I am being generous—the Government have fully perceived. It will not merely cause bitterness in the housing estates as the number of people who pay rents shrinks and the number of people whom the Government will make to feel inferior
        934
        grows; it will cause enormous difficulty and enormous additional division between the rich and the poor and between the north and the south because the poorer areas that you and I represent, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be more adversely affected.
        I hope that the Minister will ensure that this matter is looked at again, because I believe that it will have a grossly unfair effect, not least on those who most deserve our consideration.
        Mr. Allen McKay: I am a neighbour of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and we have the same problems because the people we represent work in the same industries, and live in the same type of housing developments and in similar areas. The Bill will add to previous similar Bills, all of which were aimed at a year-in, year-out, step-by-step approach. In doing so, they have split communities and created haves and have-nots.
        The Bill will carry that effect into what is probably the most precious part of a person's life, his house. Only council tenants will be affected by this, because under the Bill, if one lives in housing association accommodation, one will not be affected. Therefore, the Government are trying to persuade tenants to become tenants of a housing association by voting for that. Nothing is said about owner-occupiers receiving subsidies or about mortgage relief. The Government are picking only on council tenants. They have nothing against the tenants themselves but are after local authorities. If they want them to exist at all, it is only as enabling bodies.
        That is part of the Government's grand strategy to ensure that local government as we know it will disappear. The Government make the mistake of failing to acknowledge public recognition of the advisory role played by local council officers. The public are wondering why officers are no longer available to give advice.
        The Bill is a form of ring-fence legislation under which councils cannot subsidise local authority funding from their rates or poll tax funds. However, some local authorities have not done so for years, and mine is one of them. It receives no housing subsidy from the Government. Its housing stock was paid for over 40 or 60 years. Under a housing plan, rents from that stock are put into a rented housing pool whose profits after meeting maintenance costs help subsidise new house construction and rent levels. The Bill is taking that facility from local authorities, because the Secretary of State will be the person who determines each year what rent levels will be, and he will raise them to extremely high levels.
        As a consequence, more tenants will rely on housing benefit. However, the Government say that they do not want to meet the cost of that support—the demand for which they created. They say that council tenants should generate profits for a local authority's housing revenue account, and that that should be used to meet the expense of rebates to tenants who cannot afford higher rents. That policy is one of the most disastrous that the Government have ever devised and clearly shows their hatred and vindictiveness towards anything to do with local authorities.
        The Bill is designed to dilute the powers of local councils and ultimately to deprive them of their housing stocks. It will compel remaining local authority tenants to subsidise those who cannot afford higher rents, which will create an overall split or divide. That marks a return to the days when townships had a body of governors whose job

        935
        it was to move on any vagrant who turned up because otherwise the vagrant would become the governors' responsibility.
        The Bill will produce bitterness among local authority tenants, who will have to pay increased rents to meet the cost of housing rebates for the poorest members of society. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) remarked, it is a system that makes the poor subsidise the poorest. Once again, the Government are abdicating their responsibilities.
        Mr. George Howarth: I fully agree with the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends that the Bill is all part of a piece and reflects the Government's vendetta against council tenants. I take that argument further and say that the Government's vendetta is motivated by an attempt to smother their own incompetence.
        A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends now in the Chamber sat through the various stages of the Housing Act 1988, which has three central objectives. The first is to break up local authority housing monopolies in certain areas. Part IV gives the Government power to establish housing action trusts or the so-called alternative of tenants' choice, whereby tenants can opt out of council housing into tenancies under approved landlords. The Act's second objective is to encourage by various means the growth of private landlords, and its third is to introduce to some extent private finance to the housing association sector.
        5.15 pm
        Two months ago, in an attempt to test the success of the Housing Act 1988, I put down a number of questions. The House may be interested to learn the effect so far of that legislation, with its 130 clauses, which took three and a half months to debate in Committee. As to the provision to create HATs and to allow private landlords to take over public sector housing, of the seven original trusts proposed, at least five are unlikely to go ahead, and the other two are tottering along with no clear indication of their future. Up to two months ago, only five organisations had applied to become approved landlords. Clearly there is no great rush to take on that responsibility.
        I was also able to establish that, during the lifetime of the present Government, the number of private landlords has decreased from over 11 per cent. of all landlords to less than 8 per cent. Bearing in mind the fact that an increase in private landlords is a central objective of the Act, I asked by what percentage the Government expected the number of private landlords to increase over the next two or three years, but they declined to answer. We all know that when the Government decline to answer a question it is because the answer is not very favourable to them.
        Mr. Tony Banks: Yes, but how does one know when they are lying?
        Mr. Howarth: I shall not repeat my hon. Friend's intervention for fear of incurring your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but no doubt Hansard will pick it up.
        I remind the House that the Act's third objective is to introduce private finance into housing associations. I remind the House also that one of the Ministers concerned with the Bill has moved to greener pastures, while another
        936
        has gone out of the door altogether. The hon. Lady concerned was, I think, a victim of the new eviction regulations, because she was shunted out of her little bolthole at an early stage.
        As to that third objective, the Secretary of State for the Environment claimed that the legislation would lead to an explosion in funding for housing associations. I cannot get an answer from the Housing Corporation or from the Minister, but we know for sure that expenditure on that sector will decrease this year because of the mess that the Government made of housing association finance. There will be fewer completions this year than last. Housing associations are in an absolute mess because they cannot work out exactly how to move forward. They have to negotiate each allocation they receive separately with a financial institution. Many of them do not even know whether they can spend that allocation. That was the reality of the Government's policy this time last year.
        I had started to explain why the Government have this vendetta against council tenants; it is because they wish to smother their own incompetence. Their policies have totally failed to break up council housing monopolies, as they call them. The inevitable logic of the Government's thinking is that, because their policies are failing, they have to make life so awful, expensive and miserable for council tenants that their only option will be to try to seek an approved landlord because the Government will have weighted the terms so heavily against them.
        What a nonsense of a policy for a Government to move from one housing mistake to the next merely to cover up previous mistakes. The Government are in chaos on many fronts, but nowhere is that more true than in their housing policies, which are a mess and utterly disastrous. The sooner we get them out of power, the better.
        Mr. John Battle: I shall focus my comments on housing benefit, which is sometimes referred to as the rebate system. Some people do not realise that the two are the same.
        It became clear in Committee that, in the income and costs equation, management, maintenance and debt repayments are on one side, and rents are on the other. In the equation, housing benefit payments will come under expenditure—that is management, maintenance and debt repayments. Some of us would like to press the Government on why housing benefit has been taken out of the income support system, which should be paid in common taxes through the Treasury and passed on to tenants at local level.
        At the moment, the poor are being taken out of the national budget and those who are slightly better off, the rent payers, will have to cover them. The national budget in this House should be the place for discussing the relations between pensions, benefits and taxes. We should not push that on to the slightly better-off rent payers.
        Before I came to the House, some Opposition Members argued that housing benefit should not have been handed over to local authorities. I have checked the record; it shows that, at that time, it was said that it would become confused with the housing revenue account. It was said that local authorities would become confused with the social security system, and that the Government were determined to ensure that poverty was taken out of the national debate.
        It is no surprise that in recent weeks the Secretary of State for Social Security has denied that poverty any

        937
        longer exists in Britain. His statement was reiterated by the Prime Minister, who said that we no longer had to talk about poverty because we now have only wealth. I should express the argument in slightly less dramatic terms.
        The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment speaks for the country on housing. Does he want his hands tied by what happens in the Department of Social Security? In future, what happens to his budget will depend on the level at which income support is set each year. The Minister will have to watch the social security upratings like a hawk, because they will affect every housing revenue account of every local authority in the budget. The Secretary of State for Social Security lost the brief for health and has decided that poverty does not exist. Perhaps he now wants to run the housing department as well. The housing budget should not be run by the DSS.
        There have been 14 changes to housing benefit in less than 14 years, which means that there has not been annual budgeting. The budget for housing benefit has not been stuck to each year; transitional arrangements have been put in in between. How on earth can the Minister expect local authorities to put together their budgets and audit them when the figures are changed every few months because the Department of Social Security decides to change its contributions to housing benefit?
        The Minister's budget should enable him to improve the housing stock of this country and bring it up to modern standards. Only this last week we have seen another report from the Royal Institute of British Architects suggesting that there is a large job to be done even at this late stage. Why does not the Minister get on with that job instead of making cuts in the benefit system through the back door of the housing revenue account? That is what will happen as long as the rent rebate system remains in the equation.
        I press the Minister to assure the House that he understands the sense of the new clause and agrees that we should take housing benefit out of the equation and put it back where it belongs: in the national budget. We could then make decisions in this Chamber about taxes, pensions and benefits, which is where they ought to be made in the context of the national budget, so that the poor are not pushed back on to the limited resources that remain to the rent payers who are not in difficulties.
        Mr. Tony Banks: I speak in favour of new clause 19. In a few hours' time the Chamber, certainly the Conservative Benches, will be full of Members who have come in to talk about dog registration, in which there will be much interest, not only on the Floor but probably in the Press Gallery. The Government seem to care less about council tenants than about dogs, and they do not care very much about dogs.
        I know that the Minister was in the London borough of Newham last week. Unfortunately, I was unable to be there to go round with him, but I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), at whose invitation he came, was with him to ensure that he saw what was happening in the borough. I hope that what he saw made some impression on him and that he appreciated the scale of the problems, particularly of housing, in Newham, where 65 per cent. of council tenants receive housing benefit.
        It seems scandalous that the London borough of Newham is unable to get back 100 per cent. of the money that it paid out. It is doubly scandalous that, under the
        938
        Government's proposals, an additional 3 per cent. will have to come out of the housing revenue account. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said, the Government seem to want the poor to pay for the totally impoverished, which seems to fly in the face of decency.
        There is very little which is decent left in this Government of second-hand car salesmen, Arthur Daleys and low life generally, which is why we tabled the new clause—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) says that I have been unfair on second-hand car salesmen. I probably have. There are other forms of human existence and activities that would make more apposite comparisons with Conservative Members, but if I went through the list I am sure that I would quickly be brought to order.
        The poor are in an extremely onerous position, which is unfair, unjust and typical of the Government. I say, and have done so many times, that I have a slight flicker of hope that one day one of the Ministers will be moved by the experience of coming to a borough such as Newham and seeing how appalling the housing conditions are in terms of demand, need and shortage.
        I have not yet had a chance to talk to the Minister, but I should like to know whether he felt that his visit to Newham last week was worth while. Perhaps he can now share some of the experiences of Opposition Members. Week after week in our advice surgeries, we have to confront constituents complaining about the appalling housing conditions in which they live.
        This is a reasonable new clause which a reasonable Minister would accept. Will this Minister show himself to be almost alone on the Conservative Front Benches in being a reasonable man with a heart?
        5.30 pm
        Mr. Jeff Rooker: I should like to raise a point that is subsidiary to those raised by my hon. Friends.
        The Government seem to be saying that local authorities will not be reimbursed directly for payment of housing benefit because those payments will effectively have been made by other tenants. I draw the Minister's attention to a report published by the National Audit Office only a few days ago, on which the Public Accounts Committee will take evidence next Wednesday. It deals with the housing benefit scheme which, according to one headline in today's press, was "botched up" in April 1988. No doubt the PAC will have an interesting session. The report, incidentally, is available in the Vote Office.
        Paragraph 3.14 explains that a new system for housing benefit was designed last April under which a high rate of direct subsidy would be paid on most, but not all, housing benefit expenditure. Part of the purpose was to give local authorities an incentive to control some of the costs.
        What incentive have local authorities now to control rents, let alone costs? Clearly, if the housing revenue account is to be ring-fenced as the Bill suggests, there will be no incentive for local authorities or for central Government. Rents will go up and up, and the level of housing rebate expenditure will not matter. The cost will, be borne by the other tenants, so what the hell—why should there be any need to consider costs and efficiency? Where is the built-in management function to ensure that tenants will not be ripped off more than they are already?

        939
        There will now be no incentive for the Government or local authorities to control rents or costs, because the Government will not be part and parcel of the system and the rest of the local authority budget will not pay its share. The responsibility will be on the backs of the tenants. If the Minister can explain that, he will help me to question the Permanent Secretary or accounting officer of the Department of Social Security on Wednesday. The PAC may then obtain better value for money in taking evidence on the report, which is highly relevant to the Bill. The Permanent Secretary will say, "We are going to change the scheme." We know how this scheme is to be changed—we are doing it here tonight—but it would be helpful if the Minister would address himself to paragraph 3.14 of the report.
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I am bound to suffer from déjà vu, as we discussed this matter so many times during the many weeks of the Committee stage. I thought when we were discussing the details of the housing revenue account that Conservative Members were at a distinct advantage, as it was a rather technical matter. I was quick to point out towards the close of the proceedings that the one Opposition Member who seemed to have got it right was the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). I said that several times, not merely to damage the hon. Gentleman's chances of reselection but to compliment him genuinely. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and his supporters should, I felt, hang their heads in shame because they had not taken the time and trouble to study the subject and to come to understand it. Now, however, I must claw back every compliment that I paid the hon. Member for Leeds, West.
        Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Conservative Members below the Gangway may not be interested in what the Minister is saying, but we are interested. He may not tell us a great deal, but we still want to listen. Can they be brought to order?
        Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I am sure that the whole House can hear what the Minister is saying.
        Mr. Trippier: I said informally to the hon. Member for Hammersmith that we had the advantage not only of excellent briefing from civil servants but of access to diagrams—which are always helpful to Members of Parliament, who may be able to take pictures on board more easily than words. When it was suggested that we might offer Opposition Members the same facility in Committee, I denied them the opportunity so as to retain our advantage. On reflection, I think that I made a great mistake. Had I sent the diagrams across we might have had great fun going through them. No doubt it would have introduced a lighter note to the proceedings, and we might not have encountered the difficulties that we seem to be having today.
        I have a simple and straightforward message for the hon. Member for Leeds, West. His speech today got it right in all respects but one—he did not seem to realise that the new housing subsidy is provided by the taxpayer. The subsidy is one side of the equation, supplementing or complementing the amount being made available in the
        940
        form of rents, which is the other side. Thus we balance the management and maintenance functions that the hon. Gentleman mentioned with the rent rebate—I think that he is still the only hon. Member to have got the point about rebates being confined to council tenants.
        It is nonsense for the hon. Members for Hammersmith, for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) and for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) to suggest that the Government are anti-tenant. That is so ridiculous that it stretches credulity to breaking point. Which Government introduced the right to buy, which has been so successful? Which Government introduced the priority estates project and Estate Action? Which Government introduced estate management boards to devolve responsibility to tenants whom we wish to have more influence over the running of their affairs? The present Government have done all those things. The Labour party never thought of doing those things when it was last in office.
        Mr. Allen McKay: If the Minister will look again at the history of my local authority, he will find that we had tenants associations and organisations on estates long before the present Government came to office.
        Mr. Trippier: I think that the hon. Gentleman will regret that intervention. We are not talking about tenants associations, which have been supported for a considerable time—since before the last war, I believe. Having come up through local government, I know what an important rôle they play. But they are not the same as estate management boards. I will send the hon. Gentleman details of estate management boards in the post tonight. They allow tenants to vote some of their number on to a board which runs the estate and has the power to appoint a local government officer in a neighbourhood office serving tenants to their best advantage. There is a link, because we hope that tenants associations will put forward candidates to serve on that body. The schemes are working very well, although they were started only recently. There are now eight in the United Kingdom, and we want to see far more.
        As I have said—especially to the hon. Member for Leeds, West—housing subsidy uses taxpayers' money. Under our new policy, rent rebates are taken into the subsidy calculation in full. If there is a surplus from the operating side of the subsidy—the hon. Gentleman will remember that we debated this at length in Committee; I think that that was the term that he rightly used—where will the surplus go?
        We must explain to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) what we are not trying to do. He can be excused everything, as he did not sit on the Committee. We are not changing the rules on who is eligible for rent rebates or the level of support that people will receive. We are merely looking at how the cost of rent rebates is met. We are not concerned with the cost of anything but the rent rebates granted to a council's own tenants.
        Time and again in Committee, Opposition Members claimed that we were bringing into the equation the cost of allowances to private tenants, rate rebates and community charge rebates under the new system. They tried to give the impression that in some way all these extra costs would fall on council tenants. That is absolutely and completely wrong. All rebates and allowances, other than rebates to a council's own tenants, are outside the authority's housing

        941
        revenue account. The cost is outside the account and will remain outside it. Rebates and allowances to private tenants therefore do not come into the picture.
        In the early years of the present system, which we are anxious to change, as well as receiving help with rebate costs most councils also received the general bricks and mortar Government subsidy. They needed Government help to balance their housing revenue accounts. The position today is very different. Councils are providing much less new housing, so the loan charges that they have to pay on capital projects are growing older and being eroded by inflation. The costs falling on housing revenue accounts today are therefore less, in real terms, than they were in the early 1970s. Authorities have enjoyed recently some windfall benefits because of the success of our right-to-buy policy. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Hammersmith suggests that the Government are discriminating against council tenants, but the present system does not discriminate against them. [Interruption.] I always know that I am on to a good point when the hon. Member for Hammersmith bursts into peals of laughter because he is so embarrassed. Perhaps if I speak slowly he will be able to take the point on board.
        The truth is that we are introducing a system which means that the new housing subsidy will be met by taxpayers' money. Moreover, the windfall profits being made by local authorities will enable them to keep public sector rents down. The same advantage is not available to the private rented sector. That is one of the reasons, as was fairly said by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North for the decline in the private rented sector. However, I would argue strenuously with him, here or anywhere else he wishes, that the reason why it has fallen from 50 per cent. to the present 8 per cent. is principally because of the substantial expansion of public housing and because, due to the Rent Acts, it has not been attractive for people who would normally invest in the private rented sector to do so.
        The result of these quite dramatic changes is that, far from needing Government help to balance their housing revenue accounts, many councils are now able to generate surpluses on the account. Nowadays, only about 70 authorities, less than one fifth, claim general housing subsidy, yet throughout this time the Government—or, to be precise, the national taxpayer—have continued to pick up virtually the whole of the local rent rebates bill. An authority might be able to make a very healthy surplus on the account, but this one item alone in the account continues to attract almost the whole subsidy. What began in 1972 as a subsidy directed to authorities which needed help, as most then did, has become an unnecessary subsidy paid to authorities which could quite comfortably meet either the whole or a share of the cost of rent rebates without it.
        The general point that I make to the hon. Member for Leeds, West is that the whole purpose of introducing a new housing subsidy along the lines that we discussed at length in Committee is to make a fairer distribution to local authorities, principally in the midlands and the north where the hon. Gentleman and I come from, as recognition of the problems that they face with their housing, particularly in the inner city areas.
        The effect of the Opposition's new clause would be to remove the local contribution that the hon. Member for Leeds, West mentioned. I can see what he is driving at. He wants to ensure that tenants will not have to make a contribution, even as little as 3 per cent., to the cost of all
        942
        rebates. I can reassure him about that. I hope to make a statement as soon as possible. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will take comfort from what I have said.
        I think that I have demonstrated to all those who wanted to listen that the Government are not doing anything devious. The housing finance package provided for in this part of the Bill is specifically designed to meet the concerns that have been expressed by Opposition Members. They do not like the package. They know that it will be successful. For that reason, I hope that my hon. Friends will reject the new clause.
        5.45 pm
        Mr. Soley: The last few minutes of the Minister's speech demonstrated his best used-car salesman's approach. It would have warned anybody else off. I can now see why he was given pictures to look at to help him to understand. However, one is supposed to fill in the colours on the pictures according to the numbers. That is what the Minister has not understood. He is totally wrong, and he knows it. That is why he did not deal with the fact that the poor are being asked to subsidise the poorest. Any money in the housing revenue account over and above that which allows the account to break even will be used to subsidise the housing benefit system. In addition to their taxes, people will be paying a subsidy to the poorest. That is where the Minister has got the colours wrong in the picture book. I will give him another picture book for his birthday if he will let me know when that is.
        The tenants who will be asked to subsidise the system will have to shoulder a double burden. They will pay a subsidy through their taxes and a subsidy through their rents. The Minister has the audacity to say that he expected rents to be kept reasonably low and that the system is designed to help council tenants who will receive additional help. The statements that the Minister made in Committee about council rents varied from one day to the next. On one occasion he said:
        "A council's rent policies have not caused distortions in the market that affect people's freedom of choice."
        The next thing that he said was:
        "We have no preconception about the level to which rents should eventually rise. We have no target for council rents."
        Then he said:
        "We are not seeking to control rents."
        After that, he said:
        "The purpose of the subsidy will be to enable efficient authorities to provide a good standard of service at a reasonable and realistic rent."
        However, he never told us what a reasonable and realistic rent would be. He then said again:
        "We are not seeking to control rents."
        In the background has been the Government's constant commitment—much muted, I concede, in the last 12 months—to market rents. Now they are saying that they do not want market rents because, suddenly, they are embarrassed by them. Yet the Government are pushing council rents towards market rents in all these areas. I shall return in due course to some of those areas because of the incredible mess that the Government have made of presenting the Bill on the Floor of the House.
        We have to deal with all the amendments and new clauses in two days. It would be absurd to pursue this matter now to the extent to which it deserves to be pursued, and I readily concede that we pursued it in considerable detail in Committee. The basic principle that the Minister constantly avoids—that the poor are being

        943
        asked to subsidise the poorest and to do so in addition to what they are already paying through their taxes—leads us to the conclusion that we must press the new clause to a Division.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 36.

        Division No. 242]

        [5.48 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Henderson, Doug

        Alton, David

        Hinchliffe, David

        Anderson, Donald

        Home Robertson, John

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

        Ashton, Joe

        Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Barron, Kevin

        Illsley, Eric

        Battle, John

        Janner, Greville

        Beckett, Margaret

        Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

        Beith, A. J.

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Kirkwood, Archy

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

        Leadbitter, Ted

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Leighton, Ron

        Bidwell, Sydney

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Blunkett, David

        Lewis, Terry

        Bradley, Keith

        Litherland, Robert

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Livingstone, Ken

        Buckley, George J.

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Callaghan, Jim

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Loyden, Eddie

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        McAllion, John

        Cartwright, John

        McWilliam, John

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Madden, Max

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Clay, Bob

        Maxton, John

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Meacher, Michael

        Cohen, Harry

        Meale, Alan

        Coleman, Donald

        Michael, Alun

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

        Cousins, Jim

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Cox, Tom

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Crowther, Stan

        Murphy, Paul

        Cryer, Bob

        O'Brien, William

        Cummings, John

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Cunningham, Dr John

        Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Patchett, Terry

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Pendry, Tom

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

        Pike, Peter L.

        Dixon, Don

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Dobson, Frank

        Prescott, John

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Eastham, Ken

        Redmond, Martin

        Fatchett, Derek

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Fearn, Ronald

        Richardson, Jo

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Robertson, George

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

        Robinson, Geoffrey

        Fisher, Mark

        Rooker, Jeff

        Flannery, Martin

        Rowlands, Ted

        Flynn, Paul

        Ruddock, Joan

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Foster, Derek

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Foulkes, George

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Fraser, John

        Skinner, Dennis

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

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

        George, Bruce

        Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)

        Gordon, Mildred

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

        Gould, Bryan

        Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Snape, Peter

        Grocott, Bruce

        Soley, Clive

        Hardy, Peter

        Spearing, Nigel

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        944

        Wall, Pat

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Wallace, James

        Worthington, Tony

        Walley, Joan

        Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Mr. Allen McKay and

        Winnick, David

        Mr. Frank Haynes.

        NOES

        Adley, Robert

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Forth, Eric

        Alexander, Richard

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Franks, Cecil

        Allason, Rupert

        Freeman, Roger

        Amess, David

        Fry, Peter

        Amos, Alan

        Gale, Roger

        Arbuthnot, James

        Gardiner, George

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Gill, Christopher

        Ashby, David

        Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        Atkinson, David

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Gorst, John

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

        Gow, Ian

        Bendall, Vivian

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Benyon, W.

        Gregory, Conal

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Grist, Ian

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Body, Sir Richard

        Hague, William

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Bottomley, Peter

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Hannam, John

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

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

        Bowis, John

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Harris, David

        Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Hayes, Jerry

        Brazier, Julian

        Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

        Bright, Graham

        Hayward, Robert

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

        Heddle, John

        Browne, John (Winchester)

        Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

        Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

        Buck, Sir Antony

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Burns, Simon

        Hind, Kenneth

        Burt, Alistair

        Hordern, Sir Peter

        Butterfill, John

        Howard, Michael

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

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

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Carrington, Matthew

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Carttiss, Michael

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Hunter, Andrew

        Chapman, Sydney

        Irvine, Michael

        Chope, Christopher

        Jack, Michael

        Churchill, Mr

        Janman, Tim

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Colvin, Michael

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Conway, Derek

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Key, Robert

        Cran, James

        Kilfedder, James

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

        Knapman, Roger

        Day, Stephen

        Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

        Devlin, Tim

        Knowles, Michael

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Knox, David

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Lang, Ian

        Dover, Den

        Latham, Michael

        Dunn, Bob

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Durant, Tony

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Dykes, Hugh

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Eggar, Tim

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Lightbown, David

        Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

        Lilley, Peter

        Favell, Tony

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Fishburn, John Dudley

        Macfarlane, Sir Neil

        Fookes, Dame Janet

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Forman, Nigel

        Maclean, David

        945

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Speller, Tony

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

        Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

        McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

        Squire, Robin

        Madel, David

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Mans, Keith

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Marlow, Tony

        Steen, Anthony

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Stevens, Lewis

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Stokes, Sir John

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Miller, Sir Hal

        Sumberg, David

        Mills, Iain

        Summerson, Hugo

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Moate, Roger

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Mudd, David

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Thorne, Neil

        Norris, Steve

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

        Thurnham, Peter

        Page, Richard

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Paice, James

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Patnick, Irvine

        Trippier, David

        Pawsey, James

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Price, Sir David

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Waller, Gary

        Riddick, Graham

        Walters, Sir Dennis

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Ward, John

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        Watts, John

        Rost, Peter

        Wells, Bowen

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Wheeler, John

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Scott, Nicholas

        Wilkinson, John

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Wood, Timothy

        Shelton, Sir William

        Woodcock, Dr. Mike

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Yeo, Tim

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Shersby, Michael

        Sims, Roger

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Mr. Michael Fallon and

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

        Question accordingly negatived.

      Schedule 4

        THE KEEPING OF THE HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT
        6 pm
        Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 212, in page 143, line 48, at end insert—
        'Item 1: Percentage of Collectable Rent
        A sum from some other revenue account not greater than 1 per cent. of the Authority's gross annual collectable rent.'.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss amendment No. 213, in page 143, line 48, at end insert—
        'Item 1: Percentage of Housing Revenue Account Turnover
        A sum from some other revenue account not greater than 0·5 per cent. of the annual turnover of the Authority's Housing Revenue Account.'.
        Mr. Taylor: The debate on these amendments directly follows our previous debate and raises very much the same concern about the poor subsidising the very poor. The Minister has failed to resolve an argument that continues to rage and that severely worries tenants of council houses, namely, the effects of the ring-fencing of accounts.
        The amendments aim to add to the list of items allowed through the housing revenue account. They would
        946
        alleviate the problems caused by the Government's phasing out of rent subsidies and the ring-fencing of the HRA. The arguments for tackling the problems have already been put by the Opposition and I am well aware that the Minister is not prepared to accept what we believe will be the impact of what he is doing. Nevertheless, the people are worried and generally the people are right.
        The amendments would break the ring fence and remove the new poverty trap now being created. In fact, they are aimed at helping the Minister out of the pit that he has dug for himself because both impose a cash limit and both, especially No. 212, would reduce to nothing as council-owned homes are sold or transferred to outside management if the Government's policy is successful. It is not an open-ended sum of money; it is directly related to housing held by a council and to the costs that may be involved. Although the amendments break the ring fence, they do so in a precise and limited way.
        I hope that the Minister will seize this opportunity to save himself from the difficulties in which he will otherwise find himself. It is almost an act of generosity, and I hope that he will accept the amendments.
        Mr. Trippier: I was fascinated with the hon. Gentleman's remark that people were generally worried and that people were generally right. I find that odd. Presumably it is part of the twisted propaganda put out by the SLD. I shall seek to correct the hon. Gentleman in as brief a time as possible. He well knows that the whole purpose of not allowing money from the general rate fund in any way to subsidise the housing revenue account is to draw a clearer correlation between the management efficiency of that housing authority and the tenants that it is meant to serve as its customers.
        It is illogical for the hon. Gentleman to table such an amendment. He appears to have plucked a figure out of the air. There is no reason or justification for that figure and, indeed, he did not attempt to give one. I can comfort him by saying that there is no necessity for the amendment, and I hope that he will be good enough to convey that to those who, as he put it, are generally worried.
        Mr. George Howarth: During the last debate the Minister said that he would give me an opportunity to intervene, but he did not. He now speaks of plucking figures out of the air. By how much does he expect the private rented sector to grow during the next few years? As yet he has singularly failed to give any information on that.
        Mr. Trippier: It would be hazardous for any Minister, of any Government, standing at this Dispath Box to be so reckless as to put a figure on that. It is the same sort of answer that the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) gave when he was Leader of the Opposition, when he consistently refused to say what he thought the level of unemployment would be in X years. The hon. Gentleman's question was stupid and unworthy of him.
        Mr. Howarth: The difference between the current position and that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was Leader of the Opposition is that last year the Government implemented an Act with the major purpose of expanding the private rented sector. The Minister must have a target in mind because it is clearly a central objective of Government policy.
        Mr. Trippier: I do not understand why the Government have to set a target. With the largest public housing stock and the smallest private rented housing stock in the western world, it is clear that the position must be reversed. The balance is out of kilter. Even though this Government are efficient in introducing, developing and pursuing their policies, it is bordering on the ludicrious for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that since the Act took effect on 1 April there must have been such a dramatic incursion into the private rented sector that the results should be shown two months later.
        Mr. George Howarth rose—
        Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman knows that in Committee I was keen to allow him to intervene as many times as he wanted. We have debated these matters in the past and I have no doubt that he will return to them on other amendments. I want to respond to the SLD amendments.
        Mr. Howarth: The Minister said that the proportion of private rented sector stock is too small. A few months ago the Government enacted legislation with the specific objective of increasing that proportion. The Minister must have some idea of what he expects that legislation to achieve during the next few years. That is all that I am asking him to tell the House.
        Mr. Trippier: Obviously, we can estimate what we want to be developed through the housing association movement—
        Mr. Soley: That is the public sector.
        Mr. Trippier: I do not want to enter that debate again. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has never accepted that the housing association movement is in the private rented sector. It does not really matter how he defines it; what matters is the way that we define it because we are subject to parliamentary questions. We regard it as being within the private rented sector, but with Government subsidy. If we link the housing association rented sector with the private landlord, it is difficult to predict precisely what the figure might be—
        Mr. Soley rose—
        Mr. Trippier: No.
        Mr. Soley: I wish to correct the Minister.
        Mr. Trippier: I am sorry, but it is not a correction. The hon. Gentleman well knows that there is a difference of opinion between the Opposition and the Government.
        Mr. Soley rose—
        Mr. Trippier: If the hon. Gentleman would just calm down for a moment, I shall give way to him. There is a difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition about how to define the housing association movement. In all the statistics that we publish, we make it clear that it is in the private rented sector. The public rented sector covers council houses in the ownership of local authorities.
        Mr. Soley: I do not dispute that there is disagreement between us, but when I have tabled questions the Minister has seen fit not to answer them but to ask the Housing Corporation to do so. The Housing Corporation does not
        948
        share the Minister's view on the definition of a housing association. I want that to be clear, not because I disagree about the differences between us but because it should be understood that not all parliamentary questions give the same answer as the Minister. Answers sent indirectly through the Housing Corporation are different.
        Mr. Trippier: I respect the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman made his intervention. I have never been, formally or informally, approached by the Housing Corporation about the matter. If it disagrees with our definition of the private rented sector, I accept that that difference should be ironed out. Perhaps as a result of the hon. Gentleman's intervention the Government and the Housing Corporation will discuss it, but I have received no representations from it thus far.
        Mr. George Howarth: It is important that we are given the information for which we are asking. For the purposes of argument, I accept the Minister's definition that the housing association movement can be considered as part of the same parcel as the private rented sector. Will he predict, by his definition, by how much he expects its housing stock to increase over the next few years?
        Mr. Trippier: In saying by how much I expect it to rise, I must make it clear that it is my opinion. It is hoped that there will be a net increase in the housing association sector of at least 35,000 houses a year. We shall have to wait and see whether that target is attained. I suspect—my hon. Friends can draw comfort from this—that it might be exceeded, which is precisely the reason why I gave that figure. To have given a higher figure would have been rather reckless, would it not?
        Under the budget-making provisions of clause 67, which we introduced in Committee, local authorities will not be required to avoid a deficit on their housing revenue account. We may not have made that clear in Committee, because I cannot remember us specifically dealing with that point.
        Clause 67 requires authorities to formulate proposals that, so far as they can foresee, will not result in a deficit, and they must keep them under review, taking reasonably practicable steps throughout the year to avoid a deficit. However, if, despite their best endeavours—perhaps because of outside changes—a deficit arises, it is simply carried over to be cleared in the next financial year. Therefore, the flexibility that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) is seeking is built into the system. There is, therefore, no need for a last-minute balancing contribution from the rate fund. The HRA merely starts the following year showing a deficit.
        I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Truro and that he will withdraw the amendment.
        Mr. Matthew Taylor: The point that the Minister made at the end introduces flexibility, not autonomy, which cannot be a policy of a council. If it were, it would have to disguise it.
        We debated the same issue on amendment No. 212. There is no advantage in the House having two votes on the same issue, but put in different ways, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Mr. Soley: I beg to move amendment No. 182, in page 145, line 16, at end insert
        'or

        949
        (c) expenditure insofar as the Secretary of State determines that it relates solely to the welfare of the occupiers of houses and other property; or
        (d) expenditure insofar as the Secretary of State determines that it relates solely or primarily to the provision of a service or services for the benefit of persons who are not occupants of houses and property within the account.'.
        The amendment is important and draws attention to the Government's ring-fencing proposals. It is not the amendment that I should have liked to be selected, but there are winners and losers and I did not get the precise wording that I should have liked. Again, because of the way in which the Government have handled the Report stage, I fear that the House will be unable to give sufficient attention to the ring-fencing debate.
        The amendment aims to clarify the point that expenditure on the welfare functions of housing and services to the private sector, such as advice to private tenants, improvement grants and agency schemes, will not be debited to the housing revenue account.
        The amendment raises the principle and practice of ring fencing. Under their ring-fencing proposals, the Government are saying that the ratepayer or, in future, the poll tax payer must not subsidise rents. The only fair aspect of their proposals is that they are saying that the reverse should not apply. The proposals have serious consequences. They will increase rents and reduce subsidies available to council tenants in some areas. As a consequence, council tenants will feel a further squeeze on their finances.
        6.15 pm
        We are trying to get the Minister to clarify the Government's housing revenue account policy. Will the HRA be limited to matters relating to buildings or will it include services? Should not the poll tax payer, rather than the council tenant, bear the cost of services that are provided for the benefit of the community? Let me take the example of an advice service to private tenants. Many local authorities are arranging for private tenants to be represented in one form or another, to deal with harassment and such matters. If the charge for such services is to be debited to the HRA, problems will arise. It is logical to allow expenditure on such matters from poll tax revenue as they are a general service to the public. One cannot help suspecting that such costs will be debited to the HRA, which will limit services available to people and, at the same time, increase councils' housing costs.
        We believe that the ring-fencing proposals are unfair. The taxpayer generously and properly subsidises people who want to buy houses through grants in the form of income tax relief and grants for houses that they buy from the public sector.
        The Minister will remember the slip that he made late at night some months ago when we were debating the squalid Rent Officers (Additional Functions) Order 1989, which reduced a person's housing benefit if he was in a house that was considered to be too large. The Minister said that the taxpayer should not subsidise a spare room. I asked him how many spare rooms he had in his house and how much subsidy he received through mortgage tax relief. He replied, "That does not apply because I do not receive housing benefit." That is how the Minister avoids such questions.
        I appreciate that Labour Members are asking the Minister embarrassing and difficult questions, but the
        950
        reason why we press them is that we know, when proposals such as those on ring fencing are introduced, that a general attack is being made on council housing in an attempt to push up rents. In areas where rents have been subsidised from the rates—soon to be the poll tax—rents have been kept to a reasonable level. I hope that the Minister will not start talking about some rents being unreasonably low. In Committee, he was unable to define the words "unreasonably low". Tory and Labour-controlled authorities charge relatively low rents compared with other areas.
        Most people connected with housing, outside the Government, are trying to find some definition of affordability, which is what matters. The Government have got themselves into a crisis on housing because they have never considered that definition. There is a lack of affordable accommodation for rent or sale. That problem is biting most on people who are trying to rent or buy. Under proposals such as ring fencing, councils are being increasingly constrained, thereby increasing rents and worsening the crisis. That is why we shall press the amendment today, although, sadly, it will not receive the attention that it deserves.
        Mr. Allen McKay: I did not realise how important the amendment was until it was explained. I read it and reread it and wondered what it was about. It is about matters such as the housing advice centres set up by local authorities. Housing advice centres exist purely and simply because of the housing crisis in certain areas, which is a crisis in people's lives. The benefit for council tenants of having the right to buy, to which the Minister referred, has gone sour for many people who have found that they cannot afford the houses they have bought. Under the Housing Act 1988, local authorities cannot buy back the properties. The only alternative is to put the property on the open market and then to depend again on the local authority for housing.
        Houses are not easily available. Local authorities have decided to set up housing advice centres, where advice is available for the residents of the area and people who want to come into the area. They can obtain advice on where houses are available and the waiting time for houses. It would be wrong for such centres to be included in the housing revenue account.
        I remember a recent contribution I made. The authority to which I belong decided, quite a while ago, that it no longer wanted to be responsible to the treasurer and the treasurer's department. I suspect that the Minister has the same inclination in his present job. At the same time, the authority wanted nothing from housing, which rightfully belonged to housing, to go back to the treasurer's department. That is where we come to the previous argument.
        I have not been convinced by what the Minister said. If the Minister had said that tenants who are now paying rent would not have an increase in their rents, except as a result of increased costs on housing, I would be more than satisfied. However, when we went through that exercise with the treasurer, we had to leave in place matters that, rightfully, belonged to the housing account, such as the various levels of subsidy, but we had to take out such matters as housing advice centres and the cost of grass-cutting in private areas, which at that time were borne by the housing revenue account. If anyone had a grumble, it should have been the council tenants. If the Bill

        951
        seeks to bring such matters into the housing revenue account, it is entirely wrong. The Government should accept the amendment.
        Mr. Trippier: The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) seemed to miss the point continually, as he did in Committee. At present, subsidy from the general rate fund bolsters the housing revenue account. I have no doubt that he is embarrassed by the sizeable sums we see in inner-city areas generally, not just in inner London. The general ratepayer, soon to become the community charge payer, is finding that money. The hon. Gentleman never says anything about that and the weight that falls on the shoulders of ratepayers.
        With ring-fencing of the housing revenue account, the system will be different. We are talking about new housing subsidy coming, as I have tried to make clear, from the taxpayer. If one strips the cant out of the hon. Gentleman's contribution, he is on to quite a fine point. The examples he gave would be on the margin of the ring fence. The same is true of the interesting examples given by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay).
        The best way to give a simple definition is the way in which I tried to give a definition in Committee. Landlord functions which are provided for local authority tenants—and it might assist the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone to say that I would not use the example of housing advice centres which are available for a wider audience—would come within the housing revenue account. However, the hon. Member for Hammersmith was on to a good point because it is extremely difficult to say exactly what falls within that definition. He will recall that we took the view in terms of sheltered housing that the warden of sheltered housing provided a welfare function, whereas maintenance—and the only example I could think of at the time was changing light bulbs—would be a landlord function.
        We have decided to have negotiations and discussions with local authority associations on all those points and we have also decided that the new regime will begin from 1 April 1990, with the situation as it is. We will run it for a year to see how successful it is. Negotiations with the local authority associations may mean that we are able to change the proposal in another place. I personally doubt it. Opposition Members should welcome the fact that we have decided, because of the complications and the marginal matters on the fringes of the housing revenue account, to deal with the proposal in that way.
        Mr. Soley: That is an interesting response. The Department's talks with local authorities have not advanced, but I understand, from what the Minister has said, that he intends to continue with them. He seems to be slightly open-minded on the matter and I welcome that. I am always grateful for small mercies. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 69
        DIRECTIONS TO SECURE PROPER ACCOUNTING
        Amendment made: No. 278, in page 74, line 33, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Trippier.]
      Clause 70

        HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT SUBSIDY
        Mr. William O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 183, in page 75, line 8, at end insert—
        '(4) A local housing authority shall be informed of the result of any determination made under this section or section 71 below not later than 31st December of the year prior to the year to which the determination relates.'.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: Government amendment No. 44.
        No. 187 in, page 75, line 31, at end insert—
        '(5) The Secretary of State shall serve a notice on each local housing authority informing it of the amount of housing revenue account subsidy (if any) payable to it in any year and of the assumptions he has made in calculating the said amount.
        (6) A local housing authority may appeal against the amount or assumptions referred to in a notice served under subsection (5) above and the appeal shall be determined by an independent person appointed by agreement between the Secretary of State and the said housing authority.'.
        Government amendments No. 47 and No. 48.
        Mr. O'Brien: Amendment No. 183 is a probing amendment. When we discussed the issue in Committee, the Minister on 18 April said that he would come back on Report with amendments similar to amendment No. 183. I take that as an opportunity to invite the Minister to accept the amendment or to assure us that provisions will be made in the Bill in line with it. If he will not do so, this is an opportunity for him to explain why the local authorities should not be informed about subsidy entitlement for the subsequent financial year by 31 December in the year preceding the point at which the new financial year starts. I ask the Minister either to accept the amendment or to explain why we are not receiving the report that he promised in Committee on 18 April.
        Amendment No. 187 introduces two new provisions. In proposed clause 70(6), we are seeking to introduce some democracy into the present system. We ask that, when the Secretary of State decides on the subsidy payable to a local housing authority, it may appeal against the amount or, if no subsidy is to be paid, an appeal may be made and determined by an independent person appointed by agreement between the Secretary of State and the housing authority in dispute. We hear so much from the Government about wanting to apply democracy in many shapes. We are suggesting that the amendment will help to introduce some democracy into housing subsidies.
        Each year the Secretary of State will fix the amount of the housing revenue account subsidy for each local authority at the same time as the local authority will be considering its rent increases and management and maintenance costs. The general rent levels will be determined by the rent subsidy, if any is to be paid, and by the rent increases.
        The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to make different assumptions for different authorities. The Government have suggested that they will use that power to give different levels of subsidies to different authorities. Therefore, different rent assumptions could be made for different councils. Because that is so important, I am asking the Secretary of State to give local authorities the opportunity to obtain information where there is to be a

        953
        reduction in subsidy or where no subsidy is to be paid. Amendment No. 187 would require the Secretary of State to notify an authority of the subsidy determination and of the assumption that he has made in arriving at that determination.
        6.30 pm
        Under the current system of subsidy fixing, the Government make the same assumption for each authority in relation to, for example, rents. I should like to know whether the Government will stick to that or whether they are going to pick and choose. Will the Government make different assumptions for different councils, or will they apply the same principles across the board? If the former, on what basis will those different assumptions be made?
        The Government could make different assumptions for different councils because they think that the rents are too low in certain authorities, because the Bill is leaving the way open for a secret or covert use of that power. That is not in the best interests either of the Government or of the local authorities and it is certainly not in the best interests of the tenants. The Minister has suggested this afternoon that the Government have the tenants' interests at heart. If so, any decision to influence the rent levels that tenants will have to pay should not be secret or arbitrary. The decision should be open and people should be in a position to ask questions about how the Secretary of State has arrived at certain decisions.
        Amendment No. 187 seeks to temper the provisions by requiring the Secretary of State to tell the authority concerned why and how he has arrived at his decisions. Will the Minister confirm that that information will be available to local authorities if the Secretary of State uses the powers given by the Bill?
        Amendment No. 187 also seeks to give an authority the right of appeal. Does the Minister intend to give individual authorities the right to make representations about the determination of their subsidies?
        As I have said, amendment No. 183 is a probing amendment relating to the issue that was raised on 18 April. Amendment No. 187 seeks to obtain assurances from the Minister that, in determining the level of subsidy, housing authorities will have the recourse to request and to obtain information about how the subsidy determination has been made because of the influence of that determination on rents in the local authority's area.
        Mr. Trippier: The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) is absolutely right to say that I gave an undertaking to the Committee that I would return to this issue on Report. I said that we would table an amendment to that effect and was explicit in saying that it would be done by Christmas. If the hon. Gentleman had taken the time and the trouble to read the selection of amendments, he would have seen that we have tabled an amendment to that effect. If he had looked above that, he would have seen that his amendment interprets Christmas as 31 December. In effect, he has given us six days grace. That is incredibly generous and I was tempted to take them, to accept his amendment and to withdraw the Government amendment because probably no one would have noticed. In any case, we have discharged and honoured our responsibilities—
        Mr. Rooker: So why is the Minister still speaking?
        Mr. Trippier: Because I have to answer amendment No. 187, which the hon. Member for Normanton might just have got right.
        The best thing that I can say about amendment No. 187 is that it is a jolly good try and I do not blame the Opposition for having tried. However, it is based on another misconception. I entirely agree that the subsidy formula is a proper matter for consultation, and I gave an undertaking on that several times in Committee, but once the formula has been determined, its application is a matter of arithmetic. The idea behind the amendment appears to be that the proess is like a negotiation, in which an appeals process and the services of an arbitrator may be useful. However, it is not a negotiation at all: it is a simple calculation using the stated formula, and, as such, its outcome is objectively determined.
        Therefore, I ask my hon. Friends to reject the Opposition amendments and to support those in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
        Mr. O'Brien: If the Minister is saying that he has taken care of our points, and to acknowledge that he promised a Christmas box to the local authority associations on that matter, I am prepared to withdraw amendment No. 183 in favour of his proposals and assurances.
        On amendment No. 187, the Minister seems to be seeing things that are not there. We do not want to open up a negotiation process about the application of subsidies. However, because of the powers given to the Secretary of State in determining the level of rent subsidies, we are asking that, where there is doubt and concern and where tenants are questioning their local authorities about the level of rent increases, the housing authorities should have the right to question the Secretary of State about how he has arrived at his decision. If there is still doubt after the Secretary of State's replies, the issue should be submitted to an arbitrator who would decide whether the system was being applied fairly. That is the real purpose of amendment No. 187.
        While I do not wish to seek to divide the House on that matter, I still believe that the Minister should take this issue seriously, and I ask him to reconsider the matter carefully.
        Amendment negatived.

      Clause 71

        CALCULATION OF HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT SUBSIDY
        Amendment made: No. 44, in page 75, line 12, at end insert
        `and for any year the first such determination shall be made before the 25th December immediately preceding that year'.—[Mr. Trippier.]
        Mr. O'Brien: I beg to move, amendment No. 185 in page 75, line 27, at end insert
        'and—
        (d) amounts which relate to expenditure in respect of houses, land and other buildings in the account incurred by local authorities prior to 1st April 1990 which was not charged to the account and which was not prescribed expenditure for the purpose of Part VIII of the local Government Planning and Land Act, 1980, and which has been made known to him by local authorities.'.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that with, Mr. Speaker's permission,

        955
        amendment No. 184, which is grouped with amendment No. 185 and 186 on the selection of amendments, is to be debated separately. I want the House to understand that with amendment No. 185 we are now debating only amendment No. 186, in page 75, line 27, at end insert
        'and
        (d) the extent to which the authority has and will incur expenditure under Part III of the Housing Act 1985.'.
        Mr. O'Brien: Amendment No. 185 relates to expenditure in respect of houses, land and other buildings in the housing revenue account that was incurred by local authorities prior to 1 April 1990, which was not charged to the account, and which was not prescribed expenditure. The operative words in this amendment are "prescribed expenditure" because authorities can currently use the non-prescribed proportion of capital receipts to support certain types of return. That major expenditure is capital repairs. For receipts obtained through selling housing and housing land, the current prescribed proportion is 20 per cent. Both prescribed and non-prescribed receipts can be used for capitalised repairs. The Government do not dispute that the use of both non-prescribed receipts and capitalisation, according to the current regulations, are entirely legal.
        In Committee the Minister responsible for housing said:
        "There is a real problem here, particularly for authorities that have relied on non-prescribed capital expenditure from receipts to provide a legitimate boost to their repairs programme over a number of years."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 18 April 1989; c. 927.]
        It is accepted, therefore, that the Minister realises that there is a problem with housing repairs.
        As the Minister accepts that the new provisions in the Bill will cause problems, why will he not say that he will definitely include past capitalisation, using non-prescribed proportions of receipts within the formula covered by clause 69(1), (2), and (3)?
        The Minister has said that, in the first year of the new financial regime, rents will not rise by more than they would have done under the old arrangements. However, unless full account is taken of all capitalised repairs, either rents must rise or there will be a dramatic fall in council repairs programmes for council houses. There has been a dramatic fall in the past 10 years because of the reduction in the HIP programme. If tenants, therefore, are facing a further dramatic fall in council repairs programmes, they will suffer much more than at present. Either way tenants will suffer, and it is the Government's insistence on introducing new capital controls and ring-fencing the housing revenue account that is to blame. Can the Minister say which of the options—rent increases or cuts in repairs—he supports?
        In Committee the Minister raised a number of issues concerning non-prescribed receipts and capitalised repairs. The Minister accepts that capitalisation using non-prescribed receipts is a legitimate activity. That has occurred on a large scale and, unless it continues, a large proportion of repairs will not be carried out. The point is not so much from where the resources come, but that the work needs to be done. I underline the fact that repairs to council houses need to be done. The very fact that capitalisation is necessary on such a large scale indicates that allocations
        956
        are inadequate. Is the Minister saying that capital allocations will be increased to meet all the capitalised repairs funded from the non-prescribed proportion of receipts? If that is the option chosen, will he assure us that the new definition of capital will cover works that it has been accepted would have been capitalised in the past? In other words, there will be no change in what local authorities have been doing to ensure that the necessary repairs to council houses are undertaken and will continue to be undertaken.
        I estimate that as much as two-thirds of the current expenditure, using non-prescribed receipts—more than £400 million in England and at least £150 million in London—is devoted to capitalised repairs. Last year local authorities spent a total of £640 million on non-prescribed receipts. The estimated figure for 1988–89 is higher at £688 million, and the HIP returns suggest that in 1987–88 capitalised repairs totalled £812·2 million, with estimates of £878·1 million for 1988–89. Those are high figures. Much money is being used to meet the repairs demands of local authorities. It is not just Labour-controlled authorities that are spending that kind of money to meet council house repairs. Conservative and Democrat-controlled authorities, too, make substantial use of non-prescribed receipts and capitalised repairs.
        6.45 pm
        The proportion of non-prescribed receipts devoted to capitalised repairs varies with individual authorities. However, for many authorities, virtually all their non-prescribed expenditure has been directed towards capitalised repairs. In Waltham Forest, for example, in 1987–88 the total of non-prescribed receipts was £2·6 million out of £4·1 million on capitalised repairs. Using non-prescribed expenditure, the current estimated expenditure is £6·9 million. That was approved by the district auditor for subsidy purposes. In Greenwich in 1987–88, non-prescribed receipts were £11 million out of £21 million on capitalised repairs; and in 1988–89 non-prescribed receipts were £9 million out of £18 million on capitalised repairs. Current year spending is at the same level as the previous year. That indicates that it is essential that the Government should consider allowing capitalised repairs to continue.
        The Government are, however, now changing the rules, both for capital receipts and the housing revenue account. By forcing authorities to devote 75 per cent. of receipts remaining at April 1990 and generated after that date to repayment of debt, they have drastically depleted the available resources generated from sales of local authority assets. In other words, the change in procedure will have a tremendous effect on the local authority's ability to carry out council house repairs.
        By changing the rules, the Government have placed in jeopardy a large proportion of expenditure on repairs. By some means that must be replaced. As the system is being introduced at the Government's insistence, it is up to them to replace it. The issue is not so much the method by which the repairs were paid for in the past, but meeting the cost in the future, given the serious reduction in the financial flexibility accorded to local authorities. As has already been recorded, it is an urgent matter that should be discussed between the Department of the Environment and the local authority associations.
        It is up to the Minister to decide whether capitalised repairs paid for with non-prescribed receipts will or will

        957
        not be reflected in future subsidies or capital allocations. The local authority associations have made it clear that those amounts must be picked up, and that the preferred option is through revenue subsidy. Discussions can sort out any detail, for example over the figures, but the only person who can end the uncertainty and decide the matter is the Minister.
        I ask the Minister to consider our amendments carefully. They are directed to the level of expenditure that is required to provide facilities for the homeless, and to calculating the necessary subsidy to meet housing need and the debt involved in homelessness. I ask him to accept our proposals.
        Mr. Trippier: I got the hon. Gentleman's point at the end of his second paragraph. As much of what he said was superfluous I shall try to convince him briefly that the amendments are, too.
        Amendment No. 185 could allow the subsidy formula to refer to authorities' past practice in capitalising repairs expenditure, which is questionable on a number of grounds. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) to clause 71(3), which empowers the Secretary of State to refer to a wide range of factors in the subsidy formula.
        First, the formula should not reflect authorities' past practice; it should reflect the needs of local authorities. I do not think the hon. Gentleman disagrees with that. If that were not so, existing inequalities between high and low spenders would be reinforced. If we take account of authorities' spending, it will merely be to ensure a smooth transition to the new regime, and that is all.
        Secondly, much of the expenditure that authorities have been undertaking is properly regarded as capital spending. To the extent that that is so, the need for it should he reflected in capital allocations, not in revenue subsidy.
        Thirdly—a much more practical point—we do not have the sort of information on capitalised repairs to enable us to build a factor into the subsidy formula even if we wanted to. It is not satisfactory to seek such information now. The scope for authorities to manipulate their housing revenue accounts in order to increase their capitalised repairs, and hence their subsidy entitlements, would be too great. The cynical authorities would gain at the expense of the honest ones, which must be wrong.
        I recognise that authorities which have been relying on non-prescribed capital expenditure from receipts to give a legitimate boost to repairs programmes may be concerned about what I have just said, but I in no way demur from what I said in Committee—the hon. Gentleman was right to correct me by reference to the Committee proceedings. The door is not closed. I shall want the Department to discuss this in more detail with the local authority associations. The Bill is perfectly wide enough to permit capitalised repairs to be taken into account if we decide to do that, but the capital allocation route is preferable.
        Amendment No. 186 allows the subsidy formula to take account of the costs incurred by an authority under homelessness legislation. I would not rule out the possibility of an element in the management and maintenance allowance to reflect extra management costs for authorities with large numbers of homeless people, if we find that the cost of accommodating homeless people in HRA dwellings is significantly higher than the cost of accommodating other tenants. However, most of the costs
        958
        related to homelessness arise before homeless people become tenants, not afterwards. These costs do not fall to the housing revenue account, so there is no need to take account of them in the subsidy.
        I hope that I have convinced the House that the amendments are superfluous, and the hon. Gentleman that he should withdraw them.
        Mr. O'Brien: The Minister says that the Government do not have the statistics that are necessary to provide an idea of past spending. On the contrary, many statistics can be used to obtain that information—the Department has reams of them. The Government can gather the information before 1990, so that some help can be given to local authority organisations which will be holding discussions on this issue with the Department of the Environment.
        Let us have some co-operation. We can obtain the information from local authorities. There are statistics that would give some idea of past expenditure and of what future needs might be. The Minister has promised that discussions will continue with local authority associations. If he will give us an assurance that an attempt will be made to obtain the information necessary to allow the people with whom consultations will be held a fair opportunity to resolve the matter, I will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
        Mr. Trippier: I can give that assurance.
        Mr. O'Brien: In that case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 71

        CALCULATION OF HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT SUBSIDY
        Mr. Soley: I beg to move amendment No. 184, in page 75, line 31 at end insert—
        '(5) Notwithstanding the previous provisions of this section, in determining a formula for the purposes of this section and insofar as the said formula includes variables relating to the rents payable by tenants of a local housing authority, the Secretary of State shall assume that the average rent payable by tenants of that authority will change by an amount or factor from the average rent payable in the year prior to that to which the calculation relates and that amount or factor shall be the same for each local housing authority.'.
        It may be helpful if I keep my remarks short at this stage because I think the Secretary of State may want to intervene. Perhaps I shall be able to speak again later.
        The amendment deals with council rents. We want to try to tie the Secretary of State, when fixing housing revenue account subsidy for each year, to assuming the same level of rent increase, in money or percentage terms, for each local authority. The Secretary of State and other Ministers know that we have been worried for some time because the Government have continually ducked the question of what they believe acceptable levels of rent to be. I and everyone in the housing movement know that no absolute definition can satisfy everyone, but we also know beyond reasonable doubt that rents are becoming increasingly unaffordable for many people, which is why so many have been driven to desperation or homelessness, and why the housing crisis is growing so rapidly. The concept of affordability shuld play at least some part in policy making.

        959
        In an earlier debate, I repeated some of the statements that the Minister had made in Committee about rents. I said that they showed an incredible confusion within the Government about what rents should be. In the past 12 months, Ministers have been saying that they do not want market rents, but the Minister is on record as saying—and a number of Government documents show—that not all council rents will rise to market levels. That strongly implies—it necessarily entails—that some council rents will rise to market levels. The Government must deal with this.
        Mr. Trippier: Which document?
        Mr. Soley: A consultation paper from the summer of 1988 includes the phrase
        "would frequently be below market levels".
        Various other statements show that rents may at times rise to market levels.
        I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have argued for a long time that Britain's housing crisis derives largely from the Government's having driven up rent levels at the same time as house prices inflation has pushed up house prices. As a result, market rents have crept in, thereby approximating to the revenue people could obtain if they sold the houses they owned, invested the money and took the return on it. That is what pushes rents to market rates.
        The Government have never addressed this problem, whose complexity I concede, but it is important to realise that a free market in housing, in any serious sense of the term, is impossible. I do not want to debate whether there is such a thing as a free market in other senses—almost certainly there is not, except possibly in fruit and vegetables at the end of the road. But in housing, perhaps more than in anything else, the market is grossly distorted—by the time lag in supply and demand, by land prices and policies, by planning, and above all by the subsidy system, under which we provide a massive and ever-growing subsidy to the purchase sector and a declining subsidy to many people in the rented sector.
        We give a dangerously low subsidy to people who rent. Consequently, British people are trapped more than many others and cannot move around the country to seek work or for other reasons, because there is no neutrality in the costs of buying or renting.
        Similarly, it is difficult to move, for example, from the south Wales valleys where two-bedroomed houses are sold for about £10,000 to the south-east of England where a similar house costs about £80,000. It is also difficult to move to areas such as mine in the south-east because it is common to pay £60, £70 or £80 a week for a room, never mind a flat or a house. That is the sort of nonsense that the Government have created.
        7 pm
        I shall not pursue the matter further at this stage, because I know that the Secretary of State wishes to intervene and it may be helpful to hon. Members if that happens. We are trying to tie down the Secretary of State in the way that I have described to a method of assuming the same level of rent increase either in money or percentage terms for each local authority. It is an important amendment and raises the whole issue of rent levels.
        960
        As I have said many times during the passage of the Bill, it is grossly unreasonable to have to address such important matters in a debate that has almost become a Committee stage running late into the night on what is supposed to be Report. My hon. Friends, and I think Conservative Members, know that the Bill is virtually out of control in terms of the number of amendments and new clauses.
        Mr. Trippier: Come off it.
        Mr. Soley: The Minister has no grounds for saying that. He knows that we have been passing on Report legislation that is basically Scottish legislation, which should have gone through the proper procedure.
        The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): It is not true to say that council rents have been driven up during the currency of this Government. Throughout the 1980s the guidelines for rent increases have mostly followed increases in earnings, and actual rents have closely followed the guidelines. Before dealing further with the analysis of the housing situation by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), with which I do not entirely concur, I thought I would put him right on that.
        The amendment is concerned with the assumption that we will make about the rental income of an authority when we set its entitlement to the new housing revenue account subsidy. The point of the new subsidy is to help an authority to balance income and expenditure on the housing revenue account once we have ring-fenced it from the rest of the authority's funds.
        In determining how much subsidy authorities need each year, we obviously have to make an assumption about the amount by which they would increase their rents, if at all, from one year to the next. Under the present housing subsidy system we decide each year on a uniform increase in rents for all authorities, to be assumed for subsidy purposes. This year it is £1·95 per week. The amendment would require us to continue to operate the system in this way either by assuming a uniform cash increase for all authorities or a uniform percentage increase.
        It is nonsense to assume that every authority should put up its rents by the same amount from levels that have no logical basis. I shall give as an example two pairs of authorities which are similar and neighbouring, and which apparently differ little in their characteristics. I shall give the current average rents in those authorities. In Manchester city the average in rent in 1988 was £15·63 and in Tameside next door it was £19·40. There is no justification for that variation. I shall now look at a different sort of area. In mid-Bedfordshire the average rent last year was £16·22 and in south Bedfordshire next door it was £20·63. Those are big variations.
        Mr. Allen McKay: The Minister has given us the differences in rent levels. Could he tell us why they occur? On the reorganisation of local government when 14 authorities came together, there were 14 different rent levels. That was because the authorities had 14 different levels of service and the rent levels depended on the level of service and how repairs were dealt with.
        Mr. Ridley: There are many factors that have historically determined local authority rents. Probably the biggest is the historic debt cost. An authority which built most of its houses in the 1920s and 1930s will have a much

        961
        lower historic debt than an authority which built in the 1970s. That is no fault of the tenant, and there is no reason why those who live in 1930s houses should have a far lower rent than those who live in houses that were built more recently. That is the inequality about which I spoke earlier.
        Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?
        Mr. Ridley: No. I should like to make progress but I shall give way later.
        We need a way of accommodating different assumptions for different authorities. We have now reached the stage where I think I can help the House by giving more details about how this would work. The starting point would be a decision each year—as now, there is no change℄on the average increase to be assumed. That would produce a new national total of the income from rents. We must remember that it is a hypothetical figure which is used only for subsidy calculation and is not an instruction to councils.
        The new national total can be shared between housing authorities according to the number of dwellings that they have and an assessment of their local circumstances. That local assessment is central to our thinking. We want rents to vary geographically, not as they do now in a way which is unfair, discriminatory, haphazard and often based on historical or political bias, but in a way which takes more account of the geographical spread of housing, its type and the demand for it.
        I make it plain once again that we are not proposing market values. We are saying that if demand for housing is lower in one part of the country than in another, property values would be seen to be lower there and rents should also he lower. Conversely, where demand is higher it is reflected in property values, and should also be reflected in rents.
        A good measure of the variations in the value of property can be found in right-to-buy prices of council houses. In order to assess local circumstances we would look at the prices of council houses and flats that are being sold. To be precise, we would take the average undiscounted valuation for each authority of its right-to-buy sales and other sales of individual properties. We would apply this average price across the whole of the council's remaining housing stock to arrive at an approximation of the total value of the housing stock in each authority.
        No one, least of all me, would pretend that that gives a precise valuation of a council's stock, but precision is not needed. We are looking for a convenient and sensible comparison between councils. We would then distribute the assumed new national rent bill pro rata to these local values. For example, if an authority was seen to have one three-hundredth of the national value of council houses, we could reasonably assume that it should raise one hundredth of all the rent that is raised nationally. We would thus reach a new assumption each year about the new total rent bill for each authority which we would use in setting its rent increase guideline.
        If the present total rent income of an authority was so far behind the new assumption that a large increase was implied, we would dampen the increase so that no authority was assumed to increase its rents by more than a reasonable amount. The damping factors would be
        962
        decided each year in the light of prevailing circumstances. Equally, we could dampen the effect of the policy if no rents were assumed to be reduced.
        That policy will achieve all three of our main aims. It will encourage rents increasingly to reflect the pattern of house prices around the country, thus to some extent reflecting supply and demand. It will expect those authorities that were furthest behind to catch up more quickly while protecting those who have followed sensible rent policies in the past. Through the damping mechanism the policy will prevent undesirably high increases in individual rent bills from year to year.
        As I have stressed, the assumption that we have made about rents is just that. It is a notional assumption which we use for setting subsidy entitlements. It is up to each authority to decide on the basis of its planned expenditure and its other sources of income the level at which to pitch its rents.
        Furthermore, the assumption is based on the average rents charged by authorities. Within each authority there will be variation around the average. Rents generally vary according to the size of different properties, but other matters should also affect the spread of rents within an authority. It seems common sense that a three-bedroomed house with a garden should command a relatively higher rent than a similar sized flat halfway up a tower block and that people should pay more for a better location. But that is not always the case in every authority.
        Clause 137 of the Bill requires authorities, when setting their rents, to have regard to how rents would vary if the properties were in the private sector. It does not mean that the rents themselves must be pitched at private sector levels, only that they should vary in the same sort of relationship. This will ensure a more sensible distribution of rents within an authority, just as part VI aims to influence the distribution between different authorities. The clause gives authorities a lot of scope in deciding the criteria for their rent structure so long as they have regard, among other things, to this principle.
        I have spent some time outlining our proposals on rents because I want to leave no doubt about our intentions. I stress again, as we have done at earlier stages of the Bill's passage, that we have no ultimate target for rents. We are not aiming for market rents and we are not expecting to see large increases result. The decision on the annual guideline will be taken afresh each year. We simply want to see a gradual move towards a more sensible pattern in rents in different areas of the country and within each authority, removing present unfairnesses and reflecting more of the variation in the value of housing rather than the accident of historic cost accounting or the incidence of extra subsidies from rates.
        It will remain the responsibility of local authorities, not the Government, to set rents and expenditure taking account of all the circumstances, including their subsidy entitlement. The system is not so different from the present one, except that the calculations currently made are on a uniform basis, but in future will be on a basis taking into account local variations in factors which affect housing in its wider aspects.
        It is likely that the drafting of clause 71—the subsidy determination clause—might have to be tightened up in the light of our detailed proposals. If so, we will introduce amendments during the passage of the Bill in another place.

        963
        The Opposition amendment now before the House, however, would prevent the improvements that we aim for. It would treat all authorities the same, irrespective of their individual circumstances or how they have set their rents in the past. It would ensure that local authority housing continued to be insulated from the real world, and I therefore urge the House to reject it.
        Mr. John Fraser: The voters of Vauxhall will be interested in the announcement that has just been made by the Secretary of State. I have been thinking of comparisons in house values as between one part of the country and another. As the Under-Secretary will be aware, my father-in-law lives in his constituency and I live next door to the Vauxhall constituency. The comparative value of property between the two constituencies is in the region of 3:1.
        There are many examples in Rossendale of two-bedroom houses selling for between £10,000 and £20,000. On the other hand, the comparative price of a property of that kind in my constituency, or the adjoining one of Vauxhall, would be between £60,000 and £80,000, and I imagine that the value of comparative properties will be similar as between local authorities.
        I appreciate that the Secretary of State said that he would not be forcing local authorities to increase their rents, but the standard from which he will be working, and which he announced, will mean that if the average rent in Rossendale is £15 a week—the figures that the right hon. Gentleman gave for Manchester are not untypical of Rossendale—it would be about £45 in Vauxhall or Norwood.
        That would seem to imply an increase in rents in the long-term for council properties in Vauxhall of about £30 a week. The Secretary of State says that he would not for a moment contemplate a rent increase of £30 a week. I also appreciate that it would be subject to damping down and that some discretion would remain with local authorities in terms of rents to be charged. I appreciate all those matters and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not trying to be dramatic or to exaggerate the position by suggesting that immediate rent increases of perhaps £30 a week are in train for council tenants in Vauxhall. Nevertheless, that is the direction in which the Secretary of State's proposals are pointing, if he proposes to follow the formula which he described.
        The electors of Vauxhall—indeed, tenants in London and elsewhere—will be grateful for the indication that the right hon. Gentleman has honestly given, immediately before the by-election, of the plans he has in mind.
        7.15 pm
        Mr. Matthew Taylor: I listened with interest to the Secretary of State's announcement, which was couched in what one might call friendly terms. He seemed to be saying, "It will not happen in practice" and, "We do not mean this to happen. We want to encourage things to move in a certain direction, though not too much so."
        The right hon. Gentleman made a crucial mistake, as I shall show. There is an argument for paying close attention to what happens in the regions, not so much to house prices but to what people can afford, which involves taking account of wage levels and the restraints that lower wages place on people. I come from an area which, because large
        964
        numbers of people are coming in—to retire or to escape from the pressures in the south-east—is experiencing high house prices, even though the local people are earning low wages.
        It seems from the Secretary of State's remarks that his plans do not take account of people's ability to pay as they move from one region to another. In other words, house prices do not reflect people's ability to pay, and my constituency is not the only part of Britain in which house prices are now way above the ability of the local people to pay. In many parts of London and elsewhere the same applies.
        Nor has the Secretary of State allowed for the fact that local authority houses which sell are, almost by definition, those of the highest value. Much of the housing stock is too unattractive for people to buy. In my constituency, people seek transfers because they do not want to buy on one estate but want to move and then buy on another. I fear that his proposals could cause a distortion which, in turn, could lead to higher house prices.
        There is another distortion in my area which, to an extent, argues against the point that I have made, although it does not justify the Secretary of State's position because it shows that his argument will be distorted once his plans are put into practice. I refer to those cases where council house sales are distorted because of housing defects. In my district council of Carrick and in the borough council of Restormel there are large numbers of Cornish unit properties, the sale value of which is massively reduced because, except in unusual circumstances, they cannot normally be mortgaged. They are classified as defective and accordingly are of less value. I am referring to big estates and to a large proportion of the housing in those areas. While problems such as that could probably be overcome, the Secretary of State seems not to have taken account of those difficulties.
        What would the right hon. Gentleman consider to be a reasonable rent increase? That question has been put to Ministers time and again. Today the right hon. Gentleman spoke of "a reasonable increase". He accepts that the implications of what he is doing are large increases, but says, in effect, "We will ensure that that does not happen in practice. In any given year there will not be an increase larger than what we regard as a reasonable increase." If he had said that any increase would be "tied to inflation", we would have understood what he meant. If he had said, "tied to benefit levels", we would have understood and might even have given that commitment a cautious welcome. However, he said only "reasonable", and all politicians know that one person's reasonableness is another person's outrage. I hope that he will be able to clarify his position a little more.
        The Secretary of State is seeking to tie rents to the value of properties. I have tabled amendments and my predecessor in this job, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), tabled amendments that would have tied rents to social housing so that those who need such housing could afford to pay for it. There is a justification for saying that different people in different parts of the country can afford to pay different amounts, but people's ability to pay should not be tied to the value of property in the areas in which they live. That is affected by quite different factors, while people come in widely different wage brackets.
        Mr. David Winnick: The Secretary of State's statement will be no consolation to council tenants. Their rents will be substantially increased yet again, as they have so often been through the lifetime of this Government. Rent levels are much too high, but I do not expect the Secretary of State to show any sympathy to those who have to pay them.
        The Under-Secretary made the point quite clearly in Committee when he said that the Government were anxious that the councils should play their part in the wider housing market and that the Government felt that an important consideration was that a council's rent policies should not cause distortions in the market. What that means in practice is clear. Although the Secretary of State is denying any wish to bring council rents up to the market level, that remains the Government's objective. It may not be the immediate objective but the whole point of the Government's actions over the past few years is so to increase council rents that there will not be much difference between the public and private sectors.
        On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) intervened in the speech of the Secretary of State with a question about rent levels. In reply, the Secretary of State said:
        "First, I hope that the hon. Gentleman has advised such people that they should have exercised the right to buy and they can still do so, avoiding the trap of paying for a lifetime and ending up owning nothing."
        What that means is clear. The aim of increasing rents far higher then they should be is to pressure considerably more people to buy their own houses, or to price them out. In effect, the Government are saying, "Why pay these rents? What purpose? What logic?" In the Secretary of State's words, such people would be
        "paying for a lifetime and ending up owning nothing."—[Official Report, 14 February 1989; Vol. 147, c. 175.]
        That is one of the purposes of substantially increasing rents, apart from considerable savings in central Government expenditure.
        The Secretary of State's words on Second Reading are in line with the consultative paper, published before the Bill was brought out, "New Financial Regime—Regime for Local Authority Housing in England and Wales". Paragraph 14 brings to the attention of council tenants their right to exercise an option to buy a property or what is described as "tenants choice". That document, the Secretary of State's words, and what the Under-Secretary said in Committee all add up to the same point—substantial increases in rents, which will put the utmost pressure on council tenants to buy.
        The level of subsidy on mortgage relief, which is very much connected with this matter, has increased substantially. Like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I believe that tax relief on mortgages is right and justified, but what cannot be justified is the way that people living on very high incomes are being subsidised through that relief. There are no objections from those on Government Benches about that, but subsidising of council tenants is another matter. We hear from them all kinds of stories about how well off council tenants are, how there are Daimlers and Rolls-Royces outside council houses and other such nonsense. There is a disparity between the way in which council tenants are treated and the way in which rich people who buy their houses are subsidised by the taxpayer.
        I have been genuinely shocked by what I have heard in my constituency surgeries about the high rents that people
        966
        on incomes as low as £60 or £70 per week have to pay. I can hardly believe it. As one would expect, I write to the local authority, but in nearly every case I am told that that is the right rent level. This happens because of what the Government did last year when they substantially reduced housing benefit and removed the right of local authorities to apply discretion over housing benefit. My constituents are being penalised by an unacceptably high level of rent, and many of them are those least able to afford it. Furthermore, they are hardly able to buy the dwellings in which they live. That is one way in which poorer people have been penalised by the Government in the past few years.
        What the Secretary of State has announced today will bring no satisfaction to council tenants. His purpose is to continue increasing rent levels so as to bring them as near as possible in line with the private sector. This is unacceptable, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will press his amendment to a vote.
        Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State would have done us a greater courtesy by letting us have this information in Committee. This so-called Report stage is nonsense. As we know, it is like a mini-Committee stage, but it is getting worse and worse. We should go back into Committee to consider the enormous list of amendments and new clauses that the Government have tabled. The Secretary of State now chooses this time to make a major statement on rents. It is no good him saying that it would be helpful to the House to give it the information now. It would have been more helpful if the statement had been made in Committee so that we could have had more detail and longer to consider it.
        I have not yet had the opportunity to study the fine print of the statement, but I shall do so—one should always count one's spoons quickly when the Secretary of State is around. I know one thing: the statement will mean that council rents will go up, particularly in inner-city areas, whatever it might mean in Tory areas. Knowing the way in which the Department of the Environment works under this Government, no doubt these proposals will be so manipulated as to bring down rents in Tory areas and to stick them up as hard and as high as possible in Labour areas. That is the prejudiced and partisan way in which the Government operate. Even if I had not heard a word from the Secretary of State, I could draw the conclusion that his statement will result in higher council rents for people in inner London and the people of Newham. If I am proved to be wrong, I will make an abject apology to the Secretary of State, but I suspect that he will not have to call in that promise and I shall not have to make that apology.
        We know about the Government strategy on council rents. Perhaps strategy is too grand a word—conspiracy is a much more appropriate word to describe the Government's approach. They are trying to catch council tenants between ever-increasing rents and ever-decreasing subsidies and benefits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said correctly, this policy is aimed at forcing council tenants into the private market. The Government hate everything in the public sector, and in particular council housing.
        The Secretary of State said in so many words that he wants local authorities out of housing provision, other than at a very basic level. The Government's strategy and conspiracy since 1979 indicate that that is so. I refer to the

        967
        sale of council houses, massive reductions in housing investment programmes, statutory rent rises, benefit cuts, and, under the Housing Act 1988, the pick-a-landlord and housing action trust schemes. They are geared to forcing local authorities out of the housing market. If the Secretary of State admitted that, he would not earn any plaudits but least one would say that, miserable, cantankerous, surly and ungrateful though he is, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to speak his mind. We could then go away and hate him with a light heart and with an easy conscience. Nevertheless, I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that my conscience is very easy in my feelings towards him now.
        7.30 pm
        We need to know what the national assessment will be, because we can then make some calculations. I want to be able to leave the House tonight and when I come to write my local press releases say what the legislation will mean for council rents in Newham. If the Secretary of State did not have some idea what the assessment will be, his civil servants would not have given him the statement that he read this evening.
        In his statement, the Secretary of State said that he will reject historic costs when making rent assessments. That is grossly unfair to people who have been living in good houses built by the old London county council in the 1930s for all those years, who paid increased rents, and who have met the historic cost of their homes. They are fairly elderly by now, but if they want to stay in the rented sector they will see their rents continually increasing, knowing that they have already paid for the property in which they live.
        I would not like to be in the shoes of any Minister who started arguing the case for rejecting historic costs in respect of mortgage relief. When mortgages increase, that is not because of the increasing value of property but because of the Government's idiotic and lunatic policies on interest rates. What would mortgage payers say if they were told, "Your mortgages must relate not in any way to historic costs but to the existing value of your property. Notwithstanding any interest rate increases that the Government force upon you, you will have to carry on paying a higher and higher mortgage because it must reflect the increased value of your home."? No one would say such a thing because it would be nonsense so to do. Why is it that such a thing can be said to public sector tenants? That is another example of the Government's hypocrisy and double standards, which overlay their intensive, obsessive hatred of people living in public sector housing.
        Mr. Winnick: Has my hon. Friend noticed that, while Conservative Members always complain that people receive subsidies when they do not need to do so, not one Conservative Member has stated that because of his various incomes—and some Government Members enjoy very substantial incomes—he is not willing to receive any form of state subsidy and will return his mortgage relief to the Exchequer?
        Mr. Banks: I assume that my hon. Friend applies that stricture to all right hon. and hon. Members. I do not see any great rush by right hon. or hon. Members in any part of the House to make such a declaration, and it would be unusual if they did so. In general, we all have much higher
        968
        incomes than people living in council houses. I should like to know how many Members of Parliament live in council accommodation. I certainly do not, and I do not particularly want to. I would not want to be continually finding my rent forced up by Government policies and not able to enjoy any great benefit.
        If local authorities are left to implement their own policies, they should be able to provide decent, affordable rented accommodation. Many people who are currently owner-occupiers would probably then be willing to leave private housing for the public rented sector. We know that the Government are trying to force people out of public housing. They hate anything being in the public sector. That hatred probably extends to public lavatories. Given that public lavatories are being closed down because public authorities can no longer run them, I suppose that that is another of the problems that will be self-liquidating under Government policies.
        Until I read the fine detail of the Secretary of State's comments, I shall not know their full implications. However, I know for certain that his statement will mean higher rents for the people of Newham. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to tell me that that is not so.
        Mr. Rooker: Tonight, we have seen proof that neither the Secretary of State nor the Minister is at all concerned about the seedy aspects of electoral politics. Electoralism passes the Secretary of State by. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) went unchallenged when he made it clear that the Secretary of State at least had the courage to come to the House tonight to announce that in reality the target council rents for Vauxhall—though not for this year or for next month—are £45 per week. Today, the House has debated rent rebates, and it is now discussing a massive hike in public sector rents. So far, not one Conservative Member has uttered a word, save for the Secretary of State or the Minister. Not one Conservative Member has spoken about the extra cuts in housing benefit or their effect on poor tenants, who will have to subsidise rebates to the poorest of tenants.
        We have now listened to a statement about what I consider to be capital value rents. If it had taken the form of a statement at 3.30 pm, the annunciator would have displayed the caption, "Statement—capital value rents". Never mind the fancy phrases or fancy arithmetic: rents will be targeted and subsidies organised in such a way as to compel local authorities to fix rent levels that reflect the capital value of their properties.
        Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the points made by the hon. Gentleman and by his hon. Friends, which are false. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has given way, perhaps I may ask him why he opposes capital value rents when his own party is busy advocating capital value rates. We are not advocating capital value rents. How can the hon. Gentleman traduce me over rents and ignore the fact that his own party believes that people should be taxed on the basis of property capital values in paying for local authority services?
        Mr. Rooker: It is not as though the Secretary of State has come to the House—
        Mr. David Shaw: Answer.
        Mr. Rooker: The otherwise silent hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) will vote for anything that is put on his plate, not for reality.
        The Secretary of State announced a formula for capital value rents tied to the value at which houses and flats can be sold in the market. No matter how it is described, rent —as the Secretary of State freely admitted, and as I would be the first to admit—is money down the drain. Rates or poll tax, however the Government care to describe it, form a community kitty to pay for local services. Nobody denies that, but we are opposed to the way in which it is collected. We have to have local taxation. It cannot be abolished, because it has to provide for our community.
        We cannot all have a swimming pool in our back garden, our own fire brigade and a library in our house. We have to pay for them from the community. I will argue until the cows come home—[Interruption.] If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are prepared to accept a debate on the amendment and alternatives to the poll tax, I will stay all night and all day tomorrow to continue that debate. However, I will not go halfway and then be pulled up by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and be unable to complete the rest of my arguments. I want to debate what the Secretary of State has brought to the House tonight: capital value rents.
        As I was about to say before the Secretary of State interrupted me again, it is not as though this hike in the rent and the extra money that we will get from it will be used for a certain purpose. We all know what will happen: the money will be creamed off the housing revenue account to subsidise the poll tax. That is the reality.
        Rents will be tied to capital value. That is an interesting proposition from the Government because they have always said that they do not want market rents to be fixed by the market of supply and demand and the link between the scarcity of properties and rental values. However, they have found another way of doing the same thing, and the end result of the formula is exactly the same.
        It would be interesting if the Government were to do the same for private rents and landlords and, as they moved towards ending the control on private rents, proposed that rents in the private sector should be tied to the capital and market value, at vacant property values. That is what the Secretary of State was talking about, not tenanted values.
        Later, I suspect that we shall argue about how the averages are worked out, particularly for local authorities which sell an excess of houses with front and back gardens but in which the majority of properties are tower block flats or deck access flats. That may well be the case in London, in the Lambeth and Vauxhall authority. It is wrong for authorities to fix the rent by applying the average value of the properties they sell to those which they cannot sell, but which people could, if they wished, buy under the right-to-buy scheme.
        I understand it when the Secretary of State says that neither he nor the Government will fix the rent. I tell my constituents that and explain that, by manipulating the money that they have taken from local authorities, the Government fix the rent. They use the local authority as their proxy to fix the rent. The Government, not the local authority, will bring in a rental system which is based on the capital value of the property. The House and the Labour party have not asked for that.
        970
        7.45 pm
        My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) was right to remind us of the housing tenure mix in the Vauxhall constituency. The long-term consequence of the Secretary of State's statement will be that council house, flat and maisonette rents in Vauxhall will be £45 a week at today's values, and a lot higher in the future. If we also face the prospect of the ring fencing of the housing revenue accounts in respect of rent rebates, that will be appalling. In three or four years, nobody in his right mind will be paying £45 a week rent plus the extra to subsidise the rent rebates for everyone else. They will not do that but will instead buy the deck access and tower block flats. That is what the Government's policy is designed to do.
        The Secretary of State deserves our congratulations on having the courage to say, "This is important to the Government. We have a fantastic new rent system I am determined to rush down to the House of Commons on Wednesday 14 June. I don't care what is happening on Thursday 15 June because this is so important that the House of Commons should get it hot off the press. My message is that capital value rents in Vauxhall will hit £45 a week, at 1989 values, at some time in the future".
        Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has got it exactly right and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) hit the nail on the head: it is incredible.
        I have made many allegations about the Ministers being confused about what they want as regards rents, but the Secretary of State is not at all confused. He knows exactly what he wants. I am astounded at his audacity. He emphasised that he did not want market rents, but then described a system which, over a period, would lead to market rents. The system is based on market rent assumptions.
        The Secretary of State said that his policy would achieve three goals. First, it would encourage rents increasingly to reflect the pattern of house prices around the country, thus, to some extent, reflecting supply and demand. The important part of that statement was the first part because, as I said earlier, market rents are largely determined by house prices. Therefore, if a system is devised which will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr said, have a capital value rent system, inevitably, over a period, prices will move towards those which properties would fetch in the market. That is the other side of the coin that I use as a rule of thumb guide to what a market rent would be—which is the money one would receive if one sold a house, invested the money and drew the interest on it. That is why the private sector continues to decline.
        We all know that it pays to buy and sell houses in this country, but it does not pay to rent them. That has nothing to do with the Rent Acts, which are only marginal, but everything to do with the way we subsidise finance for purchasing houses. The Minister has created a system which links that to market values over a period.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood, who is astute and quick in such matters, has picked up the figure. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr was exactly right when he said we should thank the Secretary of State for coming here today and telling the electorate that anyone who is in council property can expect to have his rents moving towards market rents over the next few years, because that is what will happen.

        971
        Will capitalisation, such as repairs, be included in this system? If it is, the system will be even more incredible and will put up prices even further. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr is right. A great attempt has been made to push people out of the council sector into home ownership or the property of other landlords. However, the reason that the system will not push people into home ownership is that people with the right to buy are increasingly those who cannot exercise it because they cannot afford to do so.
        People are trapped in paying rents when, with a little more money, they would be able to buy, but because they cannot afford to pay their rents, even with the assistance of housing benefit, they will not be able to buy. Therefore, their only option is to transfer to another landlord. There is a problem with that as well, because the Secretary of State is also pushing up housing association rents by cutting grant. Some of the examples that I have given recently show how housing association rents have risen and are continuing to rise.
        If tenants made the worst choice of all and went to a private landlord, their rents would rise even more rapidly —for we know that private rents rise more rapidly than others. Whatever they do, they are trapped: they will be financially clobbered.
        Sooner or later—this has not yet been said today, but the whole tragic situation focuses on it—the Government must take a view on what is an affordable rent. Many people in the housing movement are saying that it should be a maximum of 20 per cent. of net disposable income. That is a common-sense guideline, for we know that those on average or even above-average incomes who spend more than 20 per cent. of their net disposable incomes on housing will get into serious economic difficulties sooner or later—usually sooner. They will find themselves in debt; they will be unable to pay gas or electricity bills.
        Under the present Government, more and more people are spending up to 40 per cent. of their net disposable incomes on rent—and, in some cases, mortgages, although I should like to concentrate on rent. As far as I am aware, that has not been the case under any previous Government, Tory or Labour. Those people cannot survive: the facts are as bald as that.
        The Government must understand that the crisis is becoming desperate. People are in trouble, whether they are renting or buying. They are trapped at both ends: because of the interest rate policy they cannot buy, or, if they bought recently, they are in trouble because of the dramatic increase in their mortgage rates. If they try to rent, they find that rents are being driven up in the housing association, private and council sectors. This is an extraordinary proposal for the Government to advance now.
        Mr. John McAllion: I am concerned to hear of the massive rent increases that the Tories are imposing on people living in Vauxhall and elsewhere in London. Does my hon. Friend believe that the same will apply in Glasgow—particularly in Glasgow, Central, where voters are also going to the polls?
        Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is right to ask that question. The references that we have made to Vauxhall apply equally to Glasgow, Central, and are also relevant to the
        972
        European elections. People need to understand that, almost uniquely among western European countries, we are reducing the housing subsidy as a proportion of gross domestic product. Most other countries are increasing it. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr put the electoral message very clearly.
        Having spoken twice, I do not wish to delay the House. We cannot vote on the proposal; it is something that the Government intend to do. Let me say this, however: the Minister talks of amending clause 71, and he will probably need to, even with the wide-ranging power that he has given himself with a variety of local government Bills. I assume that that will be done in the House of Lords; but, either there or when the Bill returns to the Commons, we shall want to return to the issue again and again, because the message to those who are renting is desperately serious.
        Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, I should like to speak briefly to clear up a major and deliberate misinterpretation by many hon. Members.
        What I announced today was a new mechanism for local authority rents, in place of an existing mechanism which has been used by the Government for the past 10 years and which is proving more and more defective. As a result—as I have already pointed out—we have not increased council house rents, on average, by more than about the level of the increase in earnings over that period. Nothing that I have said today suggests that we will increase them by more than that, or by less, or by any particular amount. All that I have announced is a mechanism: that is my first point.
        Mr. Fraser rose—
        Mr. Ridley: I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's point. He got it completely wrong on two counts. First, he assumed that this was not a mechanism, but a major rent increase, and that rents in Lambeth would in due course rise to £45 a week. He has no right to make such an assumption. When, each year, the annual subsidy is determined, he can come back and say whether he thinks that we have done too much or too little—as he could have done in each of the past 10 years.
        Secondly, the hon. Gentleman missed the point that I made earlier—that the adjustments will be from where council rents now lie on the scale to where they would lie under the formula. He assumes that the present base is correct, although I went to some lengths to tell him that I did not consider it fair, equitable or even. If we were to name a percentage of right-to-buy values over a number of years, it might be 50, 40 or 30 per cent.; it might be any percentage. That is not what we are talking about—we are talking about a mechanism—but some authorities are closer to that "x per cent." now than others, and it is right to take into account that inequality within the base.
        Mr. Fraser: Surely the Secretary of State understands that—although there will be a revision of base levels— because the average price of a house in Lambeth for a first-time buyer is about £80,000, the base level will if anything go up as a result of market conditions. As for rents, in a borough such as Lambeth they are barely enough to pay maintenance and management charges. Ring-fencing the housing revenue account will inevitably lead to rents being driven up. In future there will be no other source from which to obtain the cost. It cannot be obtained from rate funds.
        Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. Clearly he has not followed the debates on the new housing subsidy in which we have engaged all afternoon as well as in Committee. The housing subsidy is there to fill that very gap.
        I must say that I expect trouble in Lambeth, because the efficiency of its maintenance and management does not give a great deal of satisfaction: I could talk about that at some length. It is, however, within Lambeth's ability to put the matter right, and to adjust that slightly higher rent. In answer to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), who asked what was a reasonable increase, the figure will be determined every year just as it always has been, just as a Labour Government have had to do it before and just as his party would have to do it if it came to office.
        I concede—if "concede" is the right word—that the proposals that I have announced bear some relation to right-to-buy values. As hon. Members have rightly pointed out, the best houses tend to be sold under the right to buy, and the inequality that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) tried to find is present in all authorities, so it will probably work itself out. We feel that the right to buy is a reasonable yardstick, but we are happy to discuss possible modifications with local authorities. We propose only a proportional relationship.
        I marvel at the hypocrisy of Opposition Members who are trying to create fuss and indignation just because there are a couple of by-elections tomorrow. They themselves have been going around the country trying to conceal the fact that their system of local taxation is based on capital value rates, not just related to them or a proportion of them. That applies to full capital value rates in Lambeth, Norwood and every other constituency that they have been bleating on about. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) advocates capital value rates for council tenants in Walsall and then he comes here and bleats. He ought to be ashamed of himself for his rank hypocrisy.
        The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is the worst of the lot. The Government have been pressed to make a statement about their rent policy. I made a statement. I told the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) that I intended to do so. What did the hon. Member for Newham, North-West do? He accused me of a conspiracy. I never realised that to say something on the Floor of the House could form part of a conspiracy. The hon. Gentleman is determined to misinterpret. However, I shall tell his constituents that he bases their contribution to local authority services on capital values, whereas we shall only take them into account in determining fair rents.
        Amendment negatived.

      Clause 73

        RESIDUAL DEBT SUBSIDY
        8 pm
        Mr. O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 188, in page 76, line 22, at end insert—
        '(4) In making a determination under paragraph (3) above, the Secretary of State shall determine a standard rate of residual debt subsidy applicable to all disposals falling under paragraph (1) above.'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 189, in page 76, line 27, at end insert—
        `(5) Where a disposal to which this section applies is made under sections 74 or 104 of the Housing Act 1988 or section 32 or 43 and section 106a and Schedule 3A of the Housing Act 1985, and where the terms of such a disposal include a disposal cost or other payment by the local authority, the Secretary of State shall, in respect of each year to which the cost or payment relates, issue a Supplementary Credit Approval under section 46 above equal to not less than 75 per cent. of the cost or payment in that year.'.
        Mr. O'Brien: We have been considering tenant extortion. Now we are considering dowries to people who take over council house estates. Amendment No. 189 continues the debate on dowries. A dowry is a capital payment from a local authority to another landlord when council houses are transferred to a housing action trust, or are dealt with under the change of landlord provisions in the Housing Act 1988, or are the subject of large-scale voluntary transfer. Payment would arise when the transfer took place at negative value.
        Where such a dowry is payable, the amendment provides that the capital cost should not come from a council's housing investment programme allocation or basic credit approval. The Government would have to issue a supplementary credit approval to a value of not less than 75 per cent. of the dowry.
        The Government have been vacillating on the issue for nearly a year. We want to know when a decision is to be taken. The Government are in a terrible mess. The only formal application for a tenant's choice transfer is in Westminster—a Tory-controlled authority. It seems that that Tory council will have to pay the tenants £30 million, which it does not have. It has embarrassed the Government.
        In Committee, we were given a completely unsatisfactory answer by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley). She said that supplementary credit approvals would be issued in the case of housing action trusts but that a decision had not yet been reached on tenant's choice transfers. She said nothing at all about voluntary transfers. That substantiates my claim that the Government are in difficulties with Westminster city council about the subsidies that will have to be paid under the dowry allocation.
        Amendment No. 188 would amend clause 73, which provides for residual debt subsidy to be paid to local authorities for the costs relating to the disposal of houses and other properties. A consultation paper was issued by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office in January 1989. It proposes that the rate of residual debt subsidy will vary according to the type of proposal. The consultation paper refers to

        "Tenants' Choice and Right to Buy

        — 75 per cent.

        Voluntary Transfers to Other Landlords

        — 90 per cent.

        Housing Action Trusts

        — 100 per cent."

        No clear or logical reason was given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment in Committee as to why the rate for tenant's choice disposals should be less than for voluntary transfers, or disposals to housing action trusts.
        What is the relevance of the different arrangements? Does the Minister not agree that in disposals to a housing action trust and in disposals under tenant's choice a local

        975
        authority is being forced by the Government to dispose of part of its stock? What possible argument is there for the rates of subsidy to be different?
        The Government seem to have accepted the principle that forced disposals should attract a higher rate of subsidy. I refer to the Under-Secretary of State's comments about the Secretary of State's initiative on housing action trusts. Why, therefore, do voluntary transfers attract a higher rate of subsidy—90 per cent. in this case—when another type of forced disposal, tenant's choice, attracts only 75 per cent? In what way are the problems and uncertainties in Wales different from the problems and uncertainties in England? Does the Minister not accept that the cost of a disposal is exactly that, whether it occurs in Wales or in England? What is the outcome of the further considerations?
        I ask the Minister to explain why different subsidies are being paid. Would it not be fairer and more just to apply the same subsidy to all houses disposed of?
        Mr. Fraser: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) for reminding the House that if houses are transferred under the housing action scheme, the residual debt subsidy will be 100 per cent. under what he described as the dowry—and, I hope, 100 per cent. of the debt, apart from the dowry, under the original loan charges. The Minister knows how important that is in my constituency. Under the housing action trust scheme, the Government propose to do more than was done in the 18th century when the Highlands were cleared— they intend to take out of local authority stock 2,144 homes in two housing action areas.
        When I asked the Under-Secretary of State about this, I was told that the maximum cost of the two housing action schemes would be £132 million. That gives some idea of the scale of the meanness of the housing investment programme. Lambeth's housing investment programme amounts to about £20 million per year. That has to cover the massive housing needs of the homeless and those on the waiting list and the improvement of about 48,000 homes. The Minister's own expert's assessment of the cost of improving two estates alone was £132 million. What that expert believes ought to be spent on two estates is about six times more than the annual allocation for the whole of Lambeth's housing requirements.
        The cost of essential improvements to a house or flat in a housing action trust area is about £60,000. The maximum that could be obtained under the right-to-buy arrangements would, because of the discount, be about £30,000, but it would probably be much less than that. There would need to be a huge dowry of about £30,000 per house—about £60 million in total—if one took that as the measure of the dowry which would be paid if a housing action trust took over. There is another even more pessimistic way of looking at it. The rents of about £20 per week on that estate would support capital debt of about £10 million, taking a modest 10 per cent. interest rate. The amount to be spent on the estate is £132 million, so the amount needed to service that debt would be much higher. The dowry would be enormous—possibly about £100 million.
        I am trying to give an idea of the scale of the dowries. They would be enormous if the housing action trust scheme went ahead. If a dowry adversely affected the
        976
        minimal housing investment programme in Lambeth, we could forget about doing anything about housing, despite the 20,000 people on the waiting lists and the 1,200 homeless families, about 500 of whom live in expensive bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I ask the Minister to confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton said by saying that the residual debt subsidy for housing action trust schemes in my constituency will be 100 per cent. I want the hon. Gentleman to give a solemn undertaking that there will be no further diminution in Lambeth's housing investment programme because of any dowry to be paid under the HAT scheme.
        I apologise because in a sense this may be a highly theoretical debate as there is no way that my tenants will vote for these measures anyway.
        Mr. Trippier: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and I suspect that his last sentence devalued the currency of the rest of his speech. He must realise that his comments are in direct conflict with the statements of his hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). The hon. Member for Norwood is talking about forced disposals, but he and I know better than that. We know that one of the concessions which was given was that there should be two votes for housing action trust tenants. They can choose, first, whether they should have a housing action trust. They will have a second chance to vote with their feet to opt for various alternatives, for example, a tenants' co-operative, housing association, private landlord or return to local authority control. Let us have no more nonsense about forced disposal. It is equally mad to suggest that tenants' choice is a forced disposal. The choice is placed in the tenants' hands. That is not a forced disposal.
        The points raised by the hon. Member for Norwood were rather technical, and I shall deal with them briefly. Another concession that we made with regard to housing action trusts was to say that there would be no further financial penalty on a local authority if it wished to reacquire the houses that had temporarily been in the ownership of the HAT while they were improved. I stand by that statement, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We are anxious to get that point across to tenants.
        It is a matter for tenants because each tenant will have the opportunity to vote. The consultants are still talking to various tenants on the estates. Because the money about which we are talking is more than that which the local authority would receive in the form of the HIP allocation —which the hon. Member for Norwood said was an enormous sum—I should have thought that it was sensible for that money to be accepted. I have made it clear that, if they wish, many of those tenants can go back to the local authority and it would not be penalised financially. This is an opportunity of a lifetime, and I hope that tenants will be sensible about it.
        This money is specifically allocated in a budget within the Department of the Environment for HATs. I have made it clear that if tenants do not want it, that sum of money will be available elsewhere, and I am glad to say that some interest has been sparked in other authorities, not all of which are Conservative-controlled. I do not want that to happen. The money should be targeted in the area that the hon. Member for Norwood represents. I think that deep down he believes that. He knows that that work

        977
        needs to be done. The local authority can certainly repurchase the properties, and I am delighted to have played a part in discussions on that matter. The hon. Gentleman should help us and make it clear to tenants that this is a good deal.
        8.15 pm
        I turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Normanton. Recent developments in our policies for new capital and revenue regimes in local government mean that a residual debt subsidy is neither needed nor appropriate from 1 April 1990. From that date, loan charges will be taken 100 per cent. into the subsidy calculation. Sales receipts must be set aside partly for the reduction of debt. Any debt left after that will automatically be taken into account for subsidy.
        There is still, however, a case for residual debt subsidy to be paid in this financial year while the housing subsidy arrangements are, I admit, much less generous. We now propose to limit it to those authorities that are not eligible for main housing subsidy. We would limit it also to multiple sales only—the sales of individual properties normally cover the outstanding debt. RDS would therefore be available for tenants' choice and HATs and also for voluntary large-scale transfer. Our new proposals for RDS will not have any permanent effect on main housing subsidy.
        I apologise to the hon. Member for Norwood, who asked me a specific question—whether the proposals will in any way affect the HIP allocation that is available for Lambeth. The answer is no. That is another undertaking that I can give him.
        There have been persuasive arguments for 100 per cent. RDS. Taking those into account, we have concluded that, for 1989–90, a single rate of subsidy set at 100 per cent. of the loan charges on any residual outstanding debt would be more appropriate and would, moreover, fall into line with the rate of HRA subsidy payable under the new financial regime from April 1990. Suitable amendments reflecting this and the other changes will be made to the Bill in another place. In view of that, I maintain that amendment No. 188 is not necessary and therefore should be withdrawn.
        Amendment No. 189 proposes that supplementary credit approvals under the new capital finance system should be issued to cover 75 per cent. of any disposal costs or other payments made in transfers of local authority stock to a HAT, or under the tenants' choice procedures or in respect of voluntary disposal of stock. I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Member for Normanton all the comfort that he seeks. We are considering how best to deal with problems in funding the disposal costs that may arise because of transfer of local authority stock to the various recipients which I have recently catalogued. We issued a consultation paper earlier this week, so it is obviously premature for me to say more before further comments are received.
        In the case of a voluntary transfer, the local authority has full control over the timing of a disposal and can arrange the timing to suit its financial position. Indeed, it is for the local authority to decide whether the disposal takes place at all. As the local authority is in control of timing, there should normally be no reason for it to incur a disposal cost that it had not expected the year before.
        In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Member for Normanton will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
        Mr. O'Brien: Some of the Minister's points were interesting. We look forward to the amendments that will be tabled in another place, and obviously we shall consider them carefully.
        We are witnessing legislation on the hoof. We have heard about a change in legislation which has never before been presented to the House. What is behind that change in policy on this special issue of housing? The Minister has given an assurance that the HIP allocation will not be affected by residual debt subsidy. We shall carefully watch what happens.
        I cannot accept that there would be no compulsory disposal. What the Secretary of State said earlier will, to a large degree, influence compulsory disposal. We shall carefully monitor what happens when we have had time to consider all that has been said by the Secretary of State and the Minister.
        Because the Minister has assured us that suitable amendments will be introduced in another place, and because a consultative document is to be released, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 78

        DETERMINATIONS AND DIRECTIONS
        Amendments made: No. 47, in page 78, line 16, leave out `applying' and insert 'relating'.
        No. 48, in page 78, line 17, at end insert—
        `(3) As soon as practicable after making a determination under this Part, the Secretary of State shall send a copy of the determination to the local housing authority or authorities to which it relates.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      New Clause 8

        REBUILDING GRANTS
        `(1) In the interests of maintaining stable communities and obtaining value for money in renewal areas designated under Part VII of this Act the Secretary of State shall within one year of the passing of this Act make regulations for the introduction of rebuilding grants.

        (2) In Regulations made under the above subsection rebuilding grants will be available to owner occupiers where the local housing authority has made an assessment that it is uneconomic to offer improvement or repair grants.

        (3) The Secretary of State after consulting local housing authorities and other appropriate bodies may make regulations as to the numbers of properties, age of properties, payments of rebuilding grant and recovery of such grants as may seem appropriate to meet the needs of the local communities and the Exchequer.'.—[Mr. Rooker.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        The new clause is a probing mechanism to lest the water, and I shall not attempt to divide the House. No one could deny that some improvement grants have been wasted. Some properties are improved at quite drastic cost, but end up not being worth very much. Indeed, I could name properties in my constituency that have been improved again, again and again. After five years, the owner-occupier obtains the full benefit of any improvement should he wish to put his house on the market. In many ways that has a ratchet effect on house prices.
        I am not knocking improvement grant schemes—far from it. They have provided improved housing for thousands of our fellow citizens. However, not all

        979
        improvement grants are economic. Some properties are identified as uneconomic or unsuitable for grant. The cost of improving those properties is so great that it is sometimes argued that instead the owner-occupiers should accept clearance. I shall leave on one side the problems of compulsory purchase orders, compensation and rehousing, and concentrate on the one certain consequence of clearance, which is the destruction of stable communities. Most hon. Members who represent older areas know that to be the case. Only yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said that he wanted to speak on the new clause because of the problems in the Spinney Hill area of his constituency. We thought that we would be discussing this matter yesterday, and unfortunately my hon. Friend has to be in Leicester today.
        The experts in these matters believe that there is scope for an alternative to traditional improvement grants or clearance compensation. It is important to make far better use of financial and human resources. The cost of the loss of stable communities is incalculable because people are distributed around the four corners of our cities. It affects the quality of life for all concerned.
        I take 100 per cent. responsibility for the inadequate drafting of the new clause, which I tabled only because of a telephone conversation about the problems. My aim is to emphasise the importance of making better use of financial resources, helping to maintain stable communities and obtaining value for money. Mechanisms other than clearance should be available for uneconomic properties.
        Since I tabled the new clause I have had the benefit of written briefings from the Birmingham environmental services department, the Nationwide Anglia building society and the Rochdale housing department. I wish to draw upon all three briefings as I feel that that would set out matters rather better than the phrasing of my new clause. The basic principle of a rebuilding grant is that it is given to owners of a block of unfit properties, calculated to leave them with the same absolute equity in new equivalent property as they enjoyed in their unfit property. I am referring to new property built on the existing site. I emphasise the phrase "same absolute equity". Any calculation would take account of the existing value, the new build value and the cost of development, together with any outstanding loans on the property. It would also take account of disturbance and temporary rehousing during the development period.
        The Minister has probably seen some detailed calculations based on three examples put together by the Nationwide Anglia building society which considered the financing of such an operation. I shall cite just one example provided by the Birmingham environmental services department. The figures are based on a property in a particular part of Birmingham, using a local estate agent's valuation. The current market value of the unfit property would be £35,000; its market value when improved would be £37,000; the cost of improvement would be £20,000; the market value of new build on the same site would be £60,000; and the cost of rebuild on a new site would be £30,000. Under the current policy Birmingham would have compulsorily to purchase the property at a cost of £37,000, which would count against its capital allocation. It would end up owning land worth about £3,000—of which, if it were to sell the land under the proposed rules,
        980
        it could use only 25 per cent. for future capital spending. The person whose property was being purchased either would have to buy another property—probably a poorer quality house—or have housing supplied by the city.
        The proposal is that the rebuilding grant would be based on the principle that the owner should retain the land throughout and own the same absolute equity in the new house as he did in the old—in this case £35,000. The council would arrange and pay for temporary rehousing and the demolition of the property. It would also arrange for private sector finance—in most cases a building society or a housing association—and build new dwellings on the site at an average cost of £30,000. The new property would then be handed over to the original owner of the site, but with the £30,000 debt attached to it—that is, the cost of rebuild. The owner would have a brand new property worth £60,000, but with a debt of £30,000. The owner's original equity was £35,000—the value of the property in an unfit condition. The council would provide a rebuilding grant of only £5,000 leaving an outstanding debt of £25,000.
        It would be a brand new house that allowed the original family to live on the same site in the same street. Obviously, the £25,000 debt would have to be financed. An additional mortgage could be arranged in advance with the building society that adopted the scheme, the owner could find his own money or, most likely, the building society or housing association attached to the scheme could take an equity share in the property. It would retain a 42 per cent. share which either could be funded by charging rent or it could retain its share and reclaim it if and when the property is sold or the owner could afford to buy out the share.
        The scheme would depend on the building plot being of sufficient size to allow rebuilding. That would not necessarily be the case in some clearance areas because of the size of properties and the design of dwellings. However, it would still be possible to apply the scheme to the same locality, if not exactly the same site. It would be important to obtain a new-build valuation, and I used the example of £30,000. The example that I gave earlier from Birmingham envisages a scheme for about 50 dwellings. That is not a massive scheme, but it would offer economies of scale for the builder.
        8.30 pm
        I am told that the current housing market is especially favourable for such schemes, with a relatively high premium on new build property compared with the cost of building.
        The example that I have given of a property costing £30,000 to build—I appreciate on land already owned by the owner—subsequently becoming worth £60,000 is incredible. Those figures were provided by local estate agents, not dreamt up by the local council.
        The cost of rebuilding compared with rehabilitation is important. In most cases, rehabilitation will clearly be the most economic option. I am putting forward the scheme not as an alternative but as an option where rehabilitation is uneconomic, and as an alternative to clearance and the destruction of a stable community. It is crucial that the social side of the equation is entered on the financial balance sheet. If a cost is not placed on destroying stable communities, a case for rebuilding grants probably cannot be made.

        981
        The scheme would enable local rebuilding and would result in a considerable saving for the city of Birmingham on the work that it has done so far. Owners would get a new property at no cost to them and would have a mortgage. Although they would own only a proportion of the property, it would still be their home, they would have the same neighbours and live in the same community from choice, as opposed to being sent elsewhere such as a tower block miles away, having to move their children from school, make new friends and all the other difficulties of breaking up a community. A worse possibility is having their property improved and living through what can be a nightmare for many people, yet in three or four years having to have the property improved yet again, which is a gross waste of money. I am sure that in his tours around the country the Minister will have seen many such examples of waste. I could certainly give him addresses in my constituency where that has happened.
        I understand that Rochdale housing department has pursued schemes such as the one that I am proposing but has fallen foul of the Department's financial rigidity. With the best will in the world, it was trying not to waste money on improvement but to maintain stable communities, give owner-occupiers a choice, and ultimately save money. However, it fell foul of the Department's present legal arrangements.
        I was quite taken by a couple of paragraphs of the briefing provided to me by Rochdale housing department. It listed some safeguards and said:
        "With all aspects of urban renewal, it is important to remember that however attractive a scheme, it is ultimately carried out on the basis that 'The Community is the Client'. Any scheme must be for the benefit of the community and not for the personal satisfaction of officers or councillors."
        I pay tribute to whoever drafted that briefing in the Rochdale housing department. I would not lend my name, voice or vote to anything that was dreamt up for the aggrandisement of officers or councillors. The client counts, and in this instance the client is the community. We are debating, by and large, owner-occupiers in run-down inner-city dwellings. The briefing continues:
        "Consequently various safeguards must be built into the scheme …
        1. Properties must be built and sold at the market value for that area. If this requires an additional subsidy it must be applied for from whatever grants are available."
        In other words, no new magical money would be dreamt up to make the scheme work. The briefing continues:
        2. The scheme should be applied as an option to residents affected by clearance … It would be wrong for it to be considered as an alternative to traditional house renovations."
        The scheme must be an option for people faced with clearance, otherwise one would not be able to justify the social cost of keeping communities together because, by definition, they would not be sent to various parts of the city.
        I tabled the new clause following discussions with my local authority, and I believe that it has some merit. I may not have explained it satisfactorily, but I hope that the Department and the Minister will consider it and do some more work on it. If the scheme saves money, that is important; if it keeps communities together, that is important; and if it prevents us spending improvement grant uneconomically, that is important. I am in favour of money being recycled from where it is spent to the benefit
        982
        of the community, hence the mention of value for money to the taxpayer and the Exchequer in the new clause. I am not looking for a new pot of gold to spread around.
        The new clause is another way of considering a problem that all hon. Members have experienced and provides another way of tackling it, given the financial and human cost involved. In that spirit I commend it to the House.
        Mr. Trippier: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on the amount of research that he has done. I confess that I found much of his speech compelling.
        I suspect that the hon. Gentleman was unaware that I was once leader of Rochdale authority. Although I appreciate that it comes up with some innovative schemes, it was a darned sight better when it was Tory controlled. The hon. Gentleman would expect me to say that, but it does not detract from the main thrust of his argument.
        I should like to take away and study the hon. Gentleman's proposal. If he is prepared to do so, I am anxious to have a meeting with him. If he will seek leave to withdraw the new clause, we shall ascertain whether it is necessary to introduce further legislation, perhaps in another place.
        Mr. Rooker: Had I known that the Minister had served on Rochdale authority, and had I foreseen his response, I might not have made my kind comments about Rochdale.
        When I was a Front-Bench spokesman, I said that both Tory and Labour authorities were involved. The client is the community, not the officers or councillors. It is not a question of what we give people. Those days have gone. If people who hold such beliefs are hidden away in little corners of the country, the sooner their beliefs are swept away the better.
        I am more than happy to meet the Minister to discuss the scheme in more detail. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 83

        DUTY TO PUBLISH INFORMATION
        Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 215, in page 81, line 29, after 'shall', insert
        `provide information, advice and assistance to individual house holders and shall'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 190, in page 81, line 31, at end insert—
        '(3) The Secretary of State shall consult with such representatives of local authorities as he sees fit prior to making any determination under paragraph (2) above.'.
        Mr. Taylor: The amendment seeks to provide information, advice and assistance to individual householders. In Committee, the Government resisted a similar amendment to include specific mention in the Bill of the provision of free information, advice and assistance for householders in renewal areas wishing to improve their homes. The Government's view then was that in some circumstances local authorities could properly charge "some people" for certain services. They said that clause 83 placed a duty on local authorities to publish information about assistance available for carrying out works in the area and that clause 141 empowered local authorities to provide money, if necessary, to enable others

        983
        such as the National Home Improvement Council to offer advice and assistance to home owners. On that basis, the Government concluded that the amendment was unnecessary. I am not convinced of that, and the National Home Improvement Council also is not convinced. Directly comparable experience in NHIC renewal area projects shows clearly that the provision of free information, advice and assistance is a crucial element in encouraging both the least well off and those ineligible for financial assistance due to means testing to take part in a community-wide improvement project.
        Such assistance is not best given by simply producing leaflets, publishing booklets or lodging plans or proposals in town halls or libraries. There is a real need for face-to-face contact on a daily basis and for those responsible for the renewal area to be on hand and readily accessible to the residents, and preferably to be located in the area itself. It is not enough for unrelated parts of the Bill to give powers for such a service to be provided. The requirement for assistance should be clearly stated in the proposals dealing with the renewal areas, with references to those clauses which provide the necessary powers. The provision of advice has to be an integral part of the renewal area concept if it is to work properly. Frankly, I would rather no charges were made, but the suggestion of charging should be considered only in the most extreme circumstances. It should be the exception rather than the rule.
        I accept, as the Minister may argue, that Department of the Environment guidance circulars may incorporate those points, but those circulars are subject to change with the passage of time. If the Government's intent is as clear as the Minister suggested in Committee, there is no reason not to incorporate specific provisions in the Bill for local authorities to provide information, advice and assistance, as suggested in the amendment. The amendment is not a radical departure but what the Minister says that he would like to see happening, so it is presumably not an expensive change. The amendment seeks merely to ensure that the Bill will achieve what the Minister says that he hopes will happen anyway. I hope that the Minister will accept the intent of the amendment.
        Mr. Trippier: In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), I am prepared to look at the amendment again. Before I understood what lay behind the amendment, my initial response was that the clause was drafted deliberately so widely and so flexibly that the hon. Gentleman ought to leave the matter wholly to the local authorities themselves to determine how best to inform their tenants. Any Government in these circumstances cannot win. On the one hand, we are accused of interfering too much. On the other hand, we have been accused today by the hon. Gentleman of not interfering enough. So it goes on, and I suppose that it will never end.
        I find little to quarrel with in the wording of the amendment, but I wonder whether I can persuade the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it as I am prepared to meet him to see whether we can achieve something. We will give guidance, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. I am always reluctant to include more provisions on the face of the Bill telling local authorities what they should do, but perhaps some form of compromise can be reached.
        Mr. Taylor: I welcome the Minister's comments. In view of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 89

        PART VIII OF HOUSING ACT 1985
        Amendment proposed: No. 163 in page 85, line 28, at end insert—
        '(4A) In the application of section 245 of the Housing Act 1985 (contributions by Secretary of State towards expenditure of local housing authorities relating to environmental works in housing action areas) in relation to expenditure—

        (a) which was incurred on or after 14th June 1989, and

        (b) in respect of which no contribution under that section was paid before the appointed day,

        for subsection (2) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsection—
        "(2) In the case of any expenditure, the contribution—

        (a) shall be equal to one-half of the amount of the expenditure; and

        (b) shall be payable in one sum or by two or more instalments, according as the Secretary of State may determine."

        (4B) In the application of section 259 of the Housing Act 1985 (contributions by Secretary of State towards expenditure of local housing authorities relating to general improvement areas) in relation to expenditure—

        (a) which was incurred on or after 14th June 1989, and

        (b) in respect of which no contribution under that

        section was paid before the appointed day, for subsection (2) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsection—
        "(2) In the case of any expenditure, the contribution—

        (a) shall be equal to one-half of the amount of the expenditure; and

        (b) shall be payable in one sum or by two or more instalments, according as the Secretary of State may determine.".'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments No. 164 and No. 165.
        Mr. Rooker: I want to make a few points about the amendments as they affect clause 89. My only case for raising this is the inter-reaction between the winding-up of housing action areas and the beginning of the housing renewal areas as outlined in clause 89. I want to make a plea about central Handsworth in my constituency. In central Handsworth, in Charles and Turville housing action areas, hundreds of homes remain untouched to this day. They are oases of disrepair and dilapidation surrounded by a sea of improved housing. They have always been left to the end of all the other improvement schemes, because they are the most difficult to improve due to the design and tenure mix. Just as Birmingham city council, through the urban renewal department and with Department of Environment approval, got going on improvements, along came clause 89.
        8.45 pm
        I am aware that zone 1 of the Charles housing action area will start in a few weeks—or I hope it will. I am told by officials in Birmingham that it is possible to rejig the housing action area into a housing renewal area for central Handsworth. Obviously, it would be done after today's date, as outlined in Government amendment No. 163. I hope that the Minister will answer the key question: if

        985
        Birmingham local authority puts in a plan for central Handsworth by 1 April, will the Department of the Environment agree it and fund it?
        I want to describe a little of the background to the Minister because it is crucial. I must point out that few Conservative Members of Parliament represent inner cities. They sometimes talk from briefings about the inner cities as though every inner city consisted of council housing and tower blocks. It is not like that, as people discovered four years ago when we had the disturbances in part of central Handsworth. I politely took the Home Secretary and others on one side, and the press less politely, and pointed out that the vast majority of homes in the area were owner-occupied and that the others were owned by bodies other than the local authority.
        In Charles action area, owner-occupancy is 47 per cent., housing associations account for 39 per cent., the local authority for less than 5 per cent. and private landlords for 9·5 per cent. In Turville, 48 per cent. of homes are housing association properties. They are almost housing association estates—not the same housing association, because there are two large associations and four or five smaller ones. Some would claim that they are sink estates, such is the extent of the dilapidation. I know that money has been put in, but the properties are not good.
        Worse still, one or more housing associations—and I will not give names because I have the information second-hand from the local authority—in inner Birmingham are about to pull out of rehabilitation work, which goes against the grain of the purpose for which the associations were set up, mainly as a result of the new financial regime.
        The council could be putting together an alternative to what is presently proposed for central Handsworth but it could not go ahead because of clause 89. There are about 880 homes there. Of those, 43 per cent. are owner-occupied, 42 per cent. are owned by housing associations, 5·3 per cent. by local authorities, only 6 per cent. by private landlords and an odd 3 per cent. floating around which is "others or commercial". Of the homes, 80 per cent. were built before 1919. One of the reasons why the area is always left to the end is not only because the tenure and design mix is all over the place, but because 13·5 per cent. of the properties have rateable value above £225. Many years before I was born, the houses in that part of the city had quarters for servants. Judges used to live there and carriages used to arrive there. The rateable values there are high, compared with the generality. When housing improvement schemes of such a size come up against such rateable value limits, that presents difficulties.
        Unemployment in that area is running at 45 per cent. Furthermore, the Minister and I are in the ethnic minority, which comprises 32 per cent. of the population. Pensioner owner-occupiers comprise 18 per cent. of the population of the area.
        My constituents in that part of central Handsworth need a copper-bottomed guarantee that their treatment up to now as third-class citizens in relation to housing improvements will cease. When the consequences of the Bill became apparent to them earlier in the year there was much anger in the area. There are unscrupulous people in places such as central Handsworth who seek to exploit for other reasons the fear and the anger of the people that they would not have their houses improved. By and large, I use every opportunity to ensure that my constituents know that their cases can be raised legally and peacefully here in
        986
        the House of Commons and in the Birmingham city council house and that there is no reason for taking any other action that other people might propose. I promised hundreds of angry constituents that one way or another I would raise their concerns about the Bill and try to put across their case for the equal treatment that is their right. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give me the assurances that I am seeking.
        When, in an Adjournment debate on 14 July 1987—just after the general election—I raised the specific issue of the Charles and Turville housing action areas, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), gave a fairly helpful reply and subsequently agreed to visit the area. However, in the event, the declaration of the Charles housing action area was made and the Minister then saw no useful purpose in the visit.
        It is quite clear—this has been notified officially—that because of the provisions of the Bill, the declaration of the Turville housing action area and of the Willmore, Wellington and Wellhead housing action areas which are close by will not be made. Therefore, some time between now and, say, the end of the long recess, I am asking the Minister to pay a short visit to the area to see it for himself. His regional office knows that is a difficult area because of some of the factors that I have explained. It would be useful if the Minister could see it for himself. In view of the Bill's effects on the area and of the fact that there appears to be a setback in the progress of improving those properties, my request for a visit is thoroughly reasonable and justified and I hope that the Minister will accede to that some time later this year.
        Mr. Trippier: I am anxious to take up the kind invitation that the hon. Member for Perry Barr has extended to me and to pay an official visit to his constituency. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. I genuinely believe that, as a result of his two most recent contributions, he deserves all the local publicity that he can get. I mean that sincerely, because I know that his purpose is to assist those people whom he is so anxious to represent.
        However, the straightforward answer is that not only is it possible to transfer from a housing action area to a housing renewal area, but for those that are determined, acceptable and in the pipeline, it would be advantageous for them to do so. Therefore, I do not see any difficulty in giving the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. If I can pay the so-called official visit sooner rather than later, perhaps we can do whatever we can to improve the situation and the lives of the people living in those areas.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendment made: No. 164, in page 85, line 29, leave out
        `subsections (1) to (3) above'
        and insert
        `the preceding provisions of this section'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 92

        GRANTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND REPAIRS
        Amendments made: No. 39, in page 86, line 26, leave out
        `where the improvement, repair or provision is to be by'
        and insert
        `if the person who would otherwise qualify as the applicant for the grant is'.
        No. 40, in page 86, line 42, after `conversion)'. insert

        987
        'other than section 523 thereof (assistance for provision of separate service pipe for water supply)'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Schedule 11

        ENACTMENTS REPEALED
        Amendment made: No. 41, in page 204, line 5, column 3, leave out '526' and insert—
        '522.
        Sections 524 to 526.'.
        —[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 95

        THE INTEREST OF THE APPLICANT IN THE PROPERTY
        Mr. Paul: I beg to move amendment No. 191, in page 88, line 4, at end insert
        'or
        (d) in the case of an application for a renovation grant to improve a dwelling, the applicant is a tenant to whom Section 79 of the Housing Act 1985 applies.'.
        The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that council tenants continue to be eligible for grants to improve their homes. Earlier today, the Minister said that he believed that his Government had done well by tenants. However, that is not the case with this part of the Bill.
        The Government's position is indefensible. It was a Conservative Government who introduced the right for council tenants to get grants as part of their "tenants' charter" in 1980. Similarly, that right is now contained in section 463 of the Housing Act 1985. The Minister will remember that his hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) said in Committee that she believed that responsibility for essential repairs and improvements rested with the landlord, not with the tenant. That clearly argues against council tenants having the right to improve, and takes away the individual freedom of council tenants to decide for themselves to what extent they want their property to be improved in a situation when, because of Government cuts, their landlord may not be in a position to help.
        Later during the Committee stage, at column 1052, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West stated:
        "No, it is not right … It would not be right for council tenants to be eligible for grants".
        We know that housing association tenants will be eligible for grants although council tenants will not. The Government are taking away a right that they granted as recently as 1980 and which they confirmed in 1985.
        In Committee the Minister also said:
        "we have made it abundantly clear that we expect local authorities to make proper provision … so there is no difficulty." [Official Report, Standing Committee G; 25 April 1989, c. 1052–53.]
        The Minister may say that there is no difficulty, but Exchequer subsidies to local authorities have been cut from £1,393 million in 1980–81 to just £496 million in 1988–89. Local authorities' HIP allocations have been reduced from £5,266 million in 1978–79 to £1,127 million in 1988–89.
        If owners can improve and renovate with a grant, council tenants should be able to do exactly the same. The amendment does not extend to essential repairs. This is a debate about principles and about the Government yet again taking away a right that is enjoyed by council tenants.
        Mr. Trippier: Although I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) has moved the amendment, we went around that course many times in Committee. The hon. Gentleman quoted my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), accurately although his earlier quote may have been from myself. However, what he said about the Committee stage was absolutely true. If the amendment were to be accepted, it would mean that we would be giving preferential treatment to those in public sector housing as opposed to those in the private sector. That would never do. Even when a Labour Government were in power, they pursued a policy of housing improvement grants available in the private sector.
        The whole purpose of the first GIAs that were set up in my own ward by Richard Crossman was to concentrate a considerable amount of funding on private sector stock through housing improvement grants. That is the sort of thing that we are continuing.
        The new housing finance regime that we are introducing in the Bill for the public housing sector is expressly designed to tackle the problems that the hon. Gentleman has identified.
        Renovation grants are essentially concerned with the repair and improvement of private sector stock. Local authorities and other public sector bodies have other sources of funding with which to meet their responsibilities as landlords. I accept that we could debate that issue at some length on a political platform, because the hon. Member for Torfaen would argue that we have cut the HIP allocation, and we would say that we have increased the amount of capital money available through the increased amount of money made available through the right to buy. That debate would go on endlessly. We have had many opportunities to debate that in the past and no doubt we will again in the future.
        In the part of the Bill that we are now discussing, the housing improvement grants are specifically targeted at the private sector. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) wants that to continue, and so do I. I hope that, if the hon. Member for Torfaen will not withdraw the amendment, my hon. Friends will oppose it.
        Amendment negatived.

      Clause 99

        OWNER-OCCUPIERS AND TENANTS
        9 pm
        Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 317, in page 91, line 2, after 'then', insert
        'subject to the exclusions by virtue of subsection (4) below'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 193, in page 91, line 23, at end insert—
        '(4) This section does not apply where the application for a grant is made—

        (a) by a person over pensionable age; or

        (b) for a disabled facilities grant; or

        (c) by any other person as determined by the Secretary of State.'.

        No. 318, in clause 99, page 91, line 23, at end insert—

        989
        '(4) No evaluation shall be made of the financial resources of an applicant in respect of a disabled facilities grant or of an applicant for a renovation grant when a member of the applicant's household is a disabled person.'.
        No. 195, in clause 104, page 95, line 26, at end insert—
        '(3A) If an application for a grant has been approved, the authority is satisfied that, owing to circumstances beyond the control of any person described in section 97(3) their income, assets, needs or outgoings have changed, the authority may increase the amount of the grant.'.
        Mr. Morris: As you have indicated, Mr. Deputy Speaker, amendment No. 317, which I now move, is closely linked to amendment No. 318 and other amendments in the group.
        The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) very much wanted to speak in this debate, but cannot do so for unavoidable reasons. Amendments Nos. 317 and 318 have their total backing, which strongly underlines the all-party nature of the amendments. They are very much the amendments, in fact, of the all-party disablement group in the House of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South is the chairman and the hon. Member for Exeter, who raised on Second Reading, the problem the two amendments address, is the secretary.
        This is a very important series of amendments, well deserving both of maximum public attention and support from both sides of the House. In support of amendments Nos. 317 and 318, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation has said:
        "While we recognise the desirability of directing financial assistance to those in greatest need and agree that the current rateable value limit is an inaccurate means for its achievement, we are not convinced that a test of resources based upon that devised for housing benefit is appropriate for assessing the requirement for a renovation grant."
        Housing benefit can be changed as the circumstances of the applicant change, but an assessment of resources for home improvement may lead to considerable long-term financial commitment by the applicant. In many cases a household's circumstances are likely to change as, for example, when it includes a number of single adult children—non-dependants—who may well leave home before a loan for home improvements has been paid off.
        The royal association accepts that renovation grants for general house repairs and modernisation of properties occupied by disabled people should be subject to the same test of resources as other households. They strongly insist, however, that any benefits arising from disability, such as mobility and attendance allowances, should be disregarded.
        In some cases there may be a temporary accumulation of these benefits. Mobility allowance may be saved to purchase a car or a powered outdoor wheelchair. Attendance allowance may be put on one side to assist with the cost of respite care or back payment of delayed benefits may have been received for which there has been a long-standing need. Such sums should very clearly not be considered along with other savings.
        The royal association can see no reason for the complete reversal of the Government's proposal in the November 1987 consultation paper that
        "… for adaptation work, however, applicants will not be subject to a test of resources".
        990
        Nor can many other national organisations of and for disabled people that I have heard from in anticipation of the debate see any justification of the Government's volte-face.
        Peter Large, CBE, whose work for people with disabilities, in the service of the Disablement Income Group and many other national organisations, is so widely respected on both sides of the House, has also drawn attention to the Government's abandonment of the proposal set out in the consultation paper. He states:
        "If disability is acquired during the course of a working life and if it is so great as to require expensive adaptations to a house, the vast majority of those affected will suffer a significant financial loss when they become disabled. The same will be true in the case of a disabled dependant."
        It must be remembered that the disabled applicants, or dependants, will probably spend the rest of their lives disabled. Few if any will be able to look forward to employment as a means of making good whatever they are forced to spend on adaptation.
        Those with savings at the time when they become disabled can only look forward to seeing any savings they may have steadily depleted, having to spend them on aids and equipment not supplied through the NHS, on all minor and major repairs around the house, on upkeep of the garden, and on helping offset some of the extra costs of daily living as a disabled person. If the disability occurs before a person reaches working age, he or she is unlikely to be adversely affected by a means test, but many with a disabled dependant could be affected.
        The recent survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys shows that the incomes of people with disabilities are substantially below those of the rest of the population; that only 31 per cent. of people with disabilities under pension age were in paid work compared with 69 per cent. of the general population; that the earnings of those who have jobs are substantially below those of non-disabled employees and decrease further with increasing severity of disability; that 4·5 million disabled adults live in households in which there are no earners; that three quarters of disabled adults are forced to rely on state benefits as their main source of income, with an average total income of only £65·20 a week; and that the overall average income among all disabled people was only £82·20 a week.
        Means testing will, therefore, not save much money but would add to the severe financial stress that accompanies disability for most disabled people, not least owner-occupiers. In the circumstances, means testing hardly seems appropriate or cost-effective. It is particularly inappropriate when the proposed test of means is based on scales established for non-disabled people whose financial position is likely to improve, as opposed to disabled people whose financial position is likely to deteriorate.
        While other people are rightly concerned about the greenhouse effect, an increasing number of disabled people have to worry about the "workhouse effect" of the Government's policies for social security, as the facts given by the OPCS so dramatically show.
        The purpose of amendment No. 193 is to exempt pensioners, as well as applicants for a disabled facilities grant, from the means-testing provisions of the clause. Exemptions would help target grants where they are most needed. The Government's aim in introducing these changes is better to target grants on those who need them most. Successive house condition surveys have shown that

        991
        elderly and disabled people live in the worst conditions, yet are least able to improve them. Exempting these groups of applicants would thus be an effective way of targeting resources on those most in need.
        Elderly people see means testing as stigmatising and degrading. Many are put off making applications. They need encouragement and help to improve their property —hence the Government's support for elderly home owners' advice services. The Minister thinks that strong dislike of means testing is a thing of the past. If that is true, why is the take-up of other means-tested benefits by elderly people today so poor?
        Amendment No. 195 is about enabling the local housing authority, in its assessment of applicants' grant entitlement, to take account of significant changes in needs or resources.
        While recognising the problems of reassessing grants, local authorities need to be able to reassess grant entitlement if the financial circumstances of an applicant worsen significantly. It is easy to envisage circumstances in which a grant level is fixed on the basis of earnings from employment, for example, following which the applicant suffers a permanent disability which requires the end of full-time employment and a signficant and permanent drop in income and yet in which the applicant is unable to escape the financial consequences of the improvement work.
        The divide in this debate is not between the Minister and me, or between him and the other sponsors of the amendments on both sides of the House. It is a divide between the Minister and all the major organisations of and for disabled people. We are reflecting their deep concern, and I implore the Minister to give the House a constructive response to these important amendments. It would be utterly wrong to proceed with the clause as drafted.
        Sir George Young: I shall speak briefly to emphasise the all-party nature of amendments Nos. 317 and 318 and shall return briefly to some of the debates that we had in Committee when we discussed this subject. I again pay tribute to the Government for introducing new clause 10, as it then was, which went a substantial way towards meeting the anxieties of those who represent disabled people.
        I should like to press the Government a little more on some of the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). It would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister could explain why the Government have changed their mind on what appeared in the original consultation paper. There was a principle there with which most of us could identify, which said that for normal repair or improvement work unrelated to a person's disability people should be exposed to a means test when they apply for an improvement grant. In the case of adaptations which helped people to meet the needs of their disability, they were to be exempt from the test of resources.
        That principle was understandable in that it enabled disabled people to come to the starting post at the same time as everyone else, and the rules would be exactly the same. The withdrawal of that proposal in the consultation paper has caused some anxiety and amendments Nos. 317 and 318 refer to that. In his response to the Committee
        992
        debate, my hon. Friend the Minister said that he would reflect again on this in the light of letters from George Wilson and Peter Large. Is he now able to move a little towards the position pressed on him by hon. Members in all parts of the House?
        Mr. Trippier: One of my difficulties with the amendment is that I do not think that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) is speaking as a representative of the all-party committee of which I was a member before I became a member of the Government. I think that he devalues the currency of what he says because he did not start his speech by making exactly the same comments as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young).
        The whole purpose of the clause is to give additional resources to the disabled. That is what my hon. Friend has just said. The point was effectively made in Committee, but only by him. I have great respect for the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe for the work that he does for the disabled. However, I am surprised at him because he missed a great opportunity to acknowledge how the Government have moved in this direction.
        I cannot give my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton the comfort that he seeks because it is not clear to me what hon. Members would substitute for a test of resources. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe is saying that all pensioners and all disabled people should qualify for 100 per cent. grants irrespective of their ability to afford the cost of the work. I entirely accept that it is perfectly legitimate to hold that view, but I am not at all sure that it would be fair to people who are not in those categories, for example, those on low incomes, nor am I sure that all local authorities would welcome the resource commitment that it would bring. Nobody has mentioned that.
        We expect pensioners and the disabled to do well out of the new grants system. If they do not, we have failed in our precise intention. We did not think that the former system was fair. I assure the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe that many of the people that he mentions will qualify for help with the full cost of the work. We have also said that we shall look carefully at the possibility of passporting particular groups of people whose needs have been assessed for other purposes. We shall encourage help for pensioners and others in order to increase their take-up of grant.
        I remain of the view that where a pensioner or disabled person has the resources to fund the work either wholly or in part, it is not unreasonable for them to do so, not least because it encourages a degree of independence which many elderly people and others value a great deal.
        Amendment No. 195 touches on the issue that we discussed in Committee—the matter of redetermining grant entitlement where the circumstances of the applicant change after grant has been approved. We understand the arguments in favour of that, although I am not sure about why the redetermination should be one way, as the amendment would provide, if an applicant's income increased following grant approval. For instance, why should the grant not be reduced?
        There are practical difficulties in providing for the determination which the local authority associations acknowledge, even if Opposition Members do not. We are seeking to keep the test of resources as simple and straightforward as possible. Redetermination will mean

        993
        placing a duty on applicants to inform the authority whenever their circumstances change. That could happen on a number of occasions—certainly more than once—between the time of approval and even by the time the grant is paid. Would the authority, for example, need to redetermine grant each time or just once? That is not an idle debating point. It must be seriously considered, certainly in terms of legislation. We gave an undertaking in Committee, and I repeat it now, that we are prepared to consider that matter further with the local authority associations. I hope that, in those circumstances and on that understanding, the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
        9.15 pm
        Mr. Alfred Morris: I assure the Minister that the whole of my submission about amendments Nos. 317 and 318 was based on information made available to me by organisations of and for disabled people which are widely respected on both sides of both Houses. At the same time, I made it clear that the two amendments were those of the all-party disablement group in the House.
        What upsets the organisations of and for disabled people is the Government's change of policy since the consultation paper. I heard nothing from the Minister about the change of policy. It is not possible for me now to press the amendments, for reasons the House will understand, but I implore him to try his best between now and the debate in another place to review the Government's policy on this important issue. I hope that there will be significant improvements to the clause before the Bill becomes law.
        Amendment negatived.

      Clause 102

        APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS TO PROVIDE CERTAIN FACILITIES FOR THE DISABLED
        Sir George Young: I beg to move amendment No. 321, in page 93, line 1, leave out 'not'.
        Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following amendments:
        No. 322, in page 93, line 2, leave out 'unless' and insert 'if'.
        No. 323, in page 93, line 16, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
        `(c) facilitating access by the disabled occupant to, or providing for the disabled occupant, a room used or usable for sleeping.'.
        No. 324, in page 93, line 29, leave out from 'dwelling' to end of line 30.
        No. 325, in page 93, line 24, leave out paragraph (f) and insert—
        '(f) providing or enhancing heating and lighting systems and providing or adapting the controls thereof to make them suitable for the disabled occupant;'.
        No. 194, in page 93, line 30, at end insert—
        '(h) providing a structure, carport or suitable area for the purpose of parking a motor vehicle used by the disabled occupant which is accessible to him, or facilitating access to and from such a facility by the disabled occupant.

        (i) providing a source of power, light, heat, insulation and ventilation for the disabled occupant.

        994

        (j) providing suitable accommodation as part of the dwelling for a person living with or regularly attending the disabled occupant for the purpose of caring for him.

        (k) providing an additional room or rooms for the purpose of regular medical or associated treatment of the disabled occupant.'.

        No. 326, in page 93, line 30, at end add—
        '(h) providing adequate thermal insulation, including double-glazing and draftproofing; and
        (i) facilitating access to, or providing for the disabled occupant, a garage or covered carport where the disabled occupant is dependent on a road or pavement vehicle for mobility outdoors.'.
        Sir George Young: Amendments Nos. 321 and 322 are linked and the Government could concede them without any loss of face. They simply change the emphasis and would require a housing authority to approve an application if it was satisfied, as opposed to asking it not to approve it unless it was satisfied. That would be a more consumer-friendly approach towards processing applications for improvement grants from the disabled, rather than the current wording, which I find somewhat negative.
        Amendment No. 323 seeks to push on the generosity already displayed by the Government by making access by the disabled occupant more extensive. Subsection (2)(c) as drafted allows a grant where it would facilitate
        "access by the disabled occupant to a room used or usable far sleeping"
        In other words, he can get a grant if he changes a sitting room into a bedroom, but he cannot get a grant for adding a new bedroom to the house. Changing a sitting room into a bedroom is likely adversely to affect the whole of the household and should be avoided when it is possible to build an extension to the house which the disabled person could use as a bedroom. I hope that the Minister will look favourable on that amendment.
        Likewise, amendment No. 324 deals with subsection (2)(g), which I find somewhat restrictive. It facilitates
        "access and movement by the disabled occupant around the dwelling in order to enable him to care for a dependent relative."
        Surely the disabled occupant needs access and movement around the dwelling for his or her own sake, not just to look after a dependent relative. Why should it be restricted to
        "care for a dependent relative"
        when many disabled people have friends whom they look after? Indeed, others have friends who look after them, and they may need to be helped when temporarily unwell. Is it possible to move the boundaries of that provision further and more generously?
        Amendment No. 325 affects paragraph (f), which deals with
        "facilitating the use by the disabled occupant of a source of power, light or heat by altering the position of one or more means of access to or control of that source".
        I am not sure that it is enough merely to facilitate the use of existing heating or lighting systems. For example, partially-sighted people may need a greater intensity of lighting or more directed lighting as well as change of the controls. The need for adequate heating for disabled people with impaired mobility is accepted by everybody, but provision of it is not eligible for a grant under the clause as drafted.
        Amendment No. 326 would add some provisions to the end of subsection (2). Extra heating could be provided by paragraph (h), but bearing in mind that in general disabled people have less to live on than non-disabled people, the

        995
        extra heating could be economically provided by improving standards of insulation. The amendment would provide for this. Paragraph (i) enables access to a garage to be funded through improvement grant. Access to a garage is important to anyone unable, or virtually unable to walk, as evidenced by the fact that they have been subject of rate rebates, and the provision of a cover for a car and/or powered outdoor wheelchair is essential.
        Basically, these amendments represent a modest package of improvements in mandatory grants for the disabled, on which I hope that the Government will smile.
        Mr. George Howarth: The Minister has already given an undertaking to look again at discretionary grants, particularly those suggested by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation. We should like the Government to enlarge the existing criteria.
        As I understand it, the commitment is only to look at such factors as enabling disabled people to get through their front doors, to have one living room and one bedroom, to build an accessible bathroom or lavatory, to adapt a kitchen so as to be able to reach heating, lighting and other power switches, and to allow access to the home for a dependent relative. We should like to expand the criteria by bringing in such factors as access to car parking and the provision of heating, accommodation for carers, and a special treatment room. These are not dissimilar to the aims of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says because disabled people are concerned about such matters.
        Mr. Trippier: It would be unreasonable not to approach the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) about amendments Nos. 321 and 322. I accept that he is suggesting that the wording of this part of the clause appears negative. The difficulty is that the solution that he has come up with—it may be the only one that he could think of or on which he has been advised —goes much further than he intended. The same would happen to me if I did not have the facilities available to me through our super Civil Service. The amendments, if passed, would impose a duty on local authorities to approve all applications for disabled facilities grants, which is not necessarily what my hon. Friend is seeking to achieve.
        I shall examine the wording of amendments Nos. 321 and 322. I can give no other undertaking and I cannot promise that I shall find alternative or improved wording. However, in view of the spirit in which my hon. Friend spoke to the amendments, I feel under an obligation to look at them again.
        Amendments Nos. 323, 324, 325, 326 and 194 make specific additions or amendments to the purposes for which mandatory grant will be available. The Bill already provides for mandatory grant for an extensive range of works previously available only at the discretion of local authorities. It would be possible to extend that list in a variety of ways, all of which would assist the disabled person to remain in his or her home. However, it is unrealistic to propose that all of them should be requirements on the local housing authority. The resource implications could be large and go far beyond what is necessary.
        996
        In any event, subsection (3) enables authorities to provide assistance at their discretion towards the cost of other works that are likely to make the dwelling suitable for the accommodation, welfare or employment of the disabled occupant. They could include all the items listed in the amendments. However, I suppose that there must be a difference between my hon. Friend and me in the end, and the difficulty is that I do not accept that those provisions require mandatory status. I may add that subsection (3)(f) provides mandatory grant where, additionally, specialised adapted heating and lighting controls are necessary. Lighting, heating and ventilation are provided for in the new basic standard of fitness for the property concerned.
        I urge the House to resist the amendments and in so doing to support the balance between mandatory and discretionary help for which the Bill already provides.
        Sir George Young: I thank my hon. Friend for his characteristically generous reply, and I do not wish to press any of my amendments. My hon. Friend will know that the disabled lobby in another place takes an enormous interest in the parts of the Bill that we have just debated. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's remarks will be studied and that improvements may be made in another place.
        Amendment negatived.

      Clause 104

        APPROVAL AND REFUSAL OF APPLICATIONS
        Sir George Young: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 94, line 45, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'six'.
        The Committee was unable to come to a decision on the issue to which the amendment relates without the intervention of its Chairman, who used his casting vote in favour of the Government. The amendment relates to the length of time that a local authority can take to process an improvement grant application. The proposition was made in Standing Committee that the authority should have 12 months, but there was a strong feeling that that was a somewhat leisurely period of time and that six months would be more appropriate.
        The record of the Division in Standing Committee G states:
        "The Committee divided: Ayes 112, Noes 11."
        As only 25 right hon. and hon. Members served on the Committee, it appears that that is a misprint. The report adds:
        "The Chairman: In accordance with precedent, I give my vote to the Noes."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 25 April 1989; c. 1085.]
        I believe that the score was 11 all.
        Given the pressure that the Government rightly place on local authorities to process right-to-buy and planning applications more quickly, 12 months is a long time to deal with an improvement grant application. In forcing the matter to a Division in Committee, I hoped to strengthen my hon. Friend's hand in his negotiations with local authorities. I trust that he will be able to tell the House that the period allowed will be only six months.
        Mr. Peter Thurnham: I declare an interest as an electrical contractor associated with the subject matter of clause 104. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and my hon. Friend the Minister for covering the point raised in

        997
        Committee and agreeing to the amendment. I draw attention to a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister dated 19 May in which he accepts the need for electrical work to be included in the grant provisions. He writes:
        "It is often the elderly, living in a home of long standing, who have the most urgent need of assistance with rewiring."
        As that need is considered to be urgent, I ask him to consider that a time limit of six months rather than 12 would be better. Nevertheless, I thank him for acknowledging that the previous anomaly needed to be rectified.
        Figures for deaths and accidents arising from fires and faulty wiring show the importance of reaching a decision sooner rather than later. Latest statistics show that 3,600 fires in dwellings were directly attributable to faulty electrical wiring, and that they resulted in 22 deaths and 320 non-fatal casualties. The sooner the decisions can be made, the better.
        I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for accepting the need for the change to be made, but in practice local authorities are reluctant to accept the need for the grants which are still discretionary rather than mandatory. I should like my hon. Friend to consider the inclusion of the Electrical Contractors Association in the proposed working party which will provide guidance notes on the working of the Act to local authorities. Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear that in mind when he considers whether the period should be reduced from 12 months to six months.
        9.30 pm
        Mr. Trippier: I shall be happy to look at the last point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham).
        On a more general point with regard to the powerful advocacy that we have heard both from him and from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), to use one of the favourite expressions of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton, I am anxious to smile on the amendment and on him, and to be user-friendly. I am therefore prepared to accept the amendment. It may be a lesson to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East that, if he is nice to the Minister who knows what he might get?
        Mr. Tony Banks: I am sure that it will be a lesson for my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), but I happen to come from Newham, North-West.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendment made: No. 125, in page 95, line 15, at end insert—
        '(2A) Where an application for a grant is approved, then, except—
        (a) with the consent of the Secretary of State, or—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 109

        CONDITION REQUIRING REPAYMENT OF GRANT IN CASE OF CERTAIN DISPOSALS WHERE OWNER-OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE GIVEN
        Amendments made: No. 42, in page 98, line 16, leave out `and (6)' and insert `to (6A)'.
        No. 43, in page 98, line 34, at end insert—
        '(6A) In any case where—
        998

        (a) within the period referred to in subsection (2) above an owner makes a relevant disposal of the dwelling concerned (not being an exempt disposal), and

        (b) the authority having the right to demand payment from the owner as mentioned in that subsection are satisfied that he is elderly or infirm and is making the disposal with the intention of going to live in sheltered housing or a residential care home as his only or main residence.

        the authority may determine not to make any demand under subsection (2) above and, on the making of such a determination, any condition under that subsection shall cease to be in force with respect to the dwelling.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 117

        ASSISTANCE FOR PROVISION OF MINOR WORKS TO DWELLINGS
        Mr. Battle: I beg to move amendment No. 197, in page 105, line 4, after `authority', insert—
        `(i) shall give assistance as mentioned in subsection (2) below for the provision or improvement of thermal insulation in a dwelling and/or the provision of improvement of draughtproofing to doors and windows, and
        (ii)'.
        We talked earlier about discretionary and mandatory grants. I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that grants for improving heating installations in existing houses either through the homes installation scheme or through energy grant are at present mandatory, particularly for those on income support, family credit and housing benefit. Rather than making a grant aid discretionary, as the present form of clause 117 would require, will the Minister leave it as a mandatory grant, not least because it is basic to people on low incomes? Making it discretionary would represent a worsening of the current position.
        Mr. Trippier: I will try to explain to the hon. Gentleman why that would not be a good idea. The point about the new grant regime and the grant for a range of minor works is to give local authorities some flexibility in the way in which, for example, elderly home owners can be helped to stay in their own homes. It may be that draught-proofing or insulation is the most pressing need and authorities can recognise that by approving a minor works grant, even though more substantial work needs to be done on the property later on. There may, however, be a stronger case for the repair of a gutter or a down pipe, and it may make sense for insulation work to wait until other related work can go ahead. Authorities need that degree of flexibility. Otherwise, we may find ourselves in a position in which insulation work will have to be carried out even though more urgent matters are in need of attention. I hope that the hon. Member will seek leave to withdraw his amendment.
        Amendment negatived.

      Clause 118

        CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE
        Amendment made: No. 165, in page 106, line 20, at end insert—
        `(5) In the application of section 516 of the Housing Act 1985 (contributions by Secretary of State towards expense of grants under Part XV of that Act) in relation to a case where—

        999

        (a) an application under section 461 of that Act has been approved by the local housing authority after 14th June 1989, and

        (b) the date which is the certified date, as defined in section 499(3) of that Act, in relation to the works to which that application relates falls on or after the day appointed under section 154 below for the coming into force of section 92 above,

        for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
        "(2) In the case of any grant, the contribution—

        (a) shall be equal to a percentage of the amount of the grant determined under subsections (3) and (4) below; and

        (b) shall be payable in one sum or by two or more instalments, according as the Secretary of State may determine.".'.

      New Clause 29

        CONSENT REQUIRED FOR SUBSEQUENT DISPOSALS
        `.—(1) Where a dwelling which is for the time being subject to a secure tenancy is transferred under section 143 above to a person as mentioned in subsection (2)(b) of that section (in this section referred to as an "approved person"), that person shall not dispose of it except—

        (a) with the consent of the Secretary of State, which may be given either unconditionally or subject to conditions; or

        (b) by an exempt disposal, as defined in section 81(8) of the Housing Act 1988;

        and any reference in the following provisions of this section to an initial transfer is a reference to the transfer of a dwelling to an approved person under section 143 above.
        (2) Where an estate or interest in a dwelling of the approved person who acquired it on the initial transfer has been mortgaged or charged, the prohibition in subsection (1) above applies also to a disposal by the mortgagee or chargee in exercise of a power of sale or leasing, whether or not the disposal is in the name of the approved person; and in any case where—

        (a) by operation of law or by virtue of an order of a court, the dwelling which has been acquired on the initial transfer passes or is transferred from the approved person to another person, and

        (b) that passing or transfer does not constitute a disposal for which consent is required under this section,

        this section (including, where there is more than one such passing or transfer, this subsection) shall apply as if the other person to whom the dwelling passes or is transferred were the approved person.
        (3) Where subsection (1) above applies—

        (a) the new town corporation by whom the initial transfer is made shall furnish to the approved person a copy of the consent of the Secretary of State under section 143(4) above; and

        (b) the instrument by which the initial transfer is effected shall contain a statement in a form approved by the Chief Land Registrar that the requirement of this section as to consent applies to a subsequent disposal of the dwelling by the approved person.

        (4) For the purposes of this section the grant of an option to purchase the fee simple or any other interest in a dwelling is a disposal and a consent given to such a disposal extends to a disposal made in pursuance of the option.
        (5) Before giving any consent required by virtue of this section, the Secretary of State—

        (a) shall satisfy himself that the person who is seeking the consent has taken appropriate steps to consult every tenant of any dwelling proposed to be disposed of; and

        (b) shall have regard to the responses of any such tenants to that consultation.

        (6) If, apart from subsection (7) below, the consent of the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales would be required under section 9 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 (control of dispositions of land by housing associations)
        1000
        for a disposal in respect of which, by virtue of subsection (1) above, the consent of the Secretary of State is required, the Secretary of State shall consult that body before giving his consent for the purposes of this section.
        (7) No consent shall be required under the said section 9 for any disposal in respect of which consent is given in accordance with subsection (6) above.
        (8) Where the title of the new town corporation to the dwelling which is transferred by the initial transfer is not registered, and the initial transfer is a conveyance, grant or assignment of a description mentioned in section 123 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (compulsory registration of title)—

        (a) that section applies in relation to the instrument by which the initial transfer is effected whether or not the dwelling is in an area in which an Order in Council under section 120 of that Act (areas of compulsory registration) is in force;

        (b) the corporation shall give the approved person a certificate in a form approved by the Chief Land Registrar stating that the corporation is entitled to make the transfer subject only to such encumbrances, rights and interests as are stated in the instrument by which the initial transfer is effected or summarised in the certificate; and

        (c) for the purpose of registration of title, the Chief Land Registrar shall accept such a certificate as evidence of the facts stated in it, but if as a result he has to meet a claim against him under the Land Registration Acts 1925 to 1986 the corporation by whom the initial transfer was made is liable to indemnify him.

        (9) On an application being made for registration of a disposition of registered land or, as the case may be, of the title under a disposition of unregistered land, if the instrument by which the initial transfer is effected contains the statement required by subsection (3) above, the Chief Land Registrar shall enter in the register a restriction stating the requirement of this section as to consent to a subsequent disposal.
        (10) In this section—

        (a) "dwelling" and "new town corporation" have the same meaning as in section 143 above; and

        (b) "secure tenancy" has the meaning assigned by section 79 of the Housing Act 1985.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 46

        SCOTTISH NON-DOMESTIC RATES: INTERIM PROVISIONS
        `(1) For section 3 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 (determination of non-domestic rates) there shall be substituted the following section—
        "Non-domestic rates: interim provisions.
        3A.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in respect of each of the financial years specified in subsection (2) below, prescribe for each local authority a rate which shall be their non-domestic rate in respect of that year.
        (2) The financial years referred to in subsection (1) above are those beginning with the financial year 1990–91 and ending with that immediately before the financial year in respect of which the non-domestic rate is first prescribed under section 3B of this Act.
        (3) Non-domestic rates shall be levied in accordance with section 7 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 by each rating authority in respect of lands and heritages—

        (a) which are subjects (other than part residential subjects) in respect of which there is an entry in the valuation roll, according to their rateable value; or

        (b) which are part residential subjects, according to that part of their rateable value which is shown in the apportionment note as relating to the non residential use of those subjects.

        (4) The rates prescribed under subsection (1) above shall he known—

        (a) in the case of the regional council, as the non-domestic regional rate;

        1001

        (b) in the case of the district council, as the non-domestic district rate; and

        (c) in the case of the islands council, as the non-domestic islands rate.".'.

        (2) Accordingly—

        (a) references (however expressed) in any enactment to the non-domestic rate determined by a local authority under section 3 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc (Scotland) Act 1987 shall be construed as references to the non-domestic rate prescribed for the local authority under section 3A of that Act;

        (b) in section 109(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 for the words from "non-domestic district rate" onward there shall be substituted the words "information as may reasonably be required for the preparation of demand notes for the purposes of levying the non-domestic district rate";

        (c) section 110A(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and section 128(2) of and paragraph 16 of Schedule 12 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 shall cease to have effect.'.—Mr. Lang.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following: Government new clause 47 and Government amendments Nos. 274, 272, 263, 269, 268, 264, 265, 273, 266, 270, 267 and 271.
        Mr. Lang: New clauses 46 and 47 replace the existing section 3 in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987. Their purpose is to allow us to implement our recently announced policy of moving towards a common non-domestic rate poundage in Scotland. The other amendments in this grouping, including the changes in the grant provisions, are consequential.
        The existing section 3 of the 1987 Act provides powers for the Secretary of State to prescribe the maximum annual increase in each local authority's non-domestic rate. The effect of the new clauses is to replace the existing section of the 1987 Act with two new provisions. The first is a transitional provision under which the Secretary of State will be able to prescribe each year the actual rather than the maximum non-domestic rate of each authority. Our intention is to use that power to move the different rate poundages gradually, over the transitional period, towards a common level.
        Where the effect is to reduce an authority's rate income by comparison with what it would otherwise have been, the loss in rate income to that authority will be substantially compensated for by grant. By the end of the transitional period it is intended to reach a common rate poundage for all authorities, which will be at the same level as the English uniform business rate. Once that has been achieved, the second new provision will come into force, under which thereafter the Secretary of State will simply prescribe a uniform non-domestic rate each year for the whole of Scotland.
        Mr. John Maxton: The Minister says that the uniform business rate will be prescribed by the Secretary of State for the whole of Scotland. Presumably it is prescribed for the whole United Kingdom.
        Mr. Lang: No. I am referring to the rate that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will prescribe, which will be for the whole of Scotland. As our purpose is to achieve a level playing field throughout the United Kingdom, however, the hon. Gentleman is right to suspect that the figure is likely to be identical to that for England.
        Amendments Nos. 272 and 274 simplify the provisions of schedule 4 to the 1987 Act, which concern grants distribution, to bring them into line with the new business rate policy and to ensure that grant can be distributed as required to compensate authorities which lose rate income as we move towards a uniform business rate.
        The new business rate proposals deliver a commitment specifically announced by my right hon. and learned Friend last month, but we have said consistently for a long time now that we intend to sort out the long-recognised problem of the excessive rate burden on Scottish business. We have already made progress on harmonisation of valuation procedures north and south of the border. That has been a major exercise, the fruits of which will become clear with the 1990 revaluations. We are now completing the picture. Having announced our intentions on poundages on 8 May, we have wasted no time in presenting the proposed legislative changes so that we can begin to implement the new policy in the financial year 1990–91.
        Our proposals have been widely welcomed—indeed, I think it would be fair to say that they have been universally welcomed—as proposals that will remedy the long-standing disadvantage under which the business community in Scotland labours. Their rates are too high compared with those of their competitors south of the border.
        Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister expect the 1990 revaluation for businesses in Scotland to be as popular with the business community as the last revaluation?
        Mr. Lang: I expect it to be even more popular.
        Prominent among those who in recent months urged us to present some proposals was the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and it is fair to say that COSLA has also welcomed our announcement. It is a pity that it did not convert to that course sooner—its spending and its present rate poundages might not have been so high and its problem might have been much smaller—but a late conversion is better than none and we shall of course look to local authorities to make their modest contribution to the solution.
        My officials and those of COSLA have recently gone over the proposals in some detail. That dialogue will continue between now and the time when—subject to the approval of Parliament—we begin to operate the new proposals with our announcement of the distribution of revenue support grant in the autumn.
        With these new clauses and amendments we set in place the coping stone on the archway that we have been building, through which Scottish business can pass to a fairer business rates environment—to the proverbial level playing field that will enable it to operate on level rates terms with other businesses in the rest of the United Kingdom. The problem has developed over many years; the Government have tackled it, and we are now on our way to solving it.
        Mr. Maxton: I am aware of the fact that at present there is more interest in rottweiler dogs than in the Scottish non-domestic rating system. When I was canvassing recently during the Glasgow, Central by-election I had the paw of a rottweiler dog put on a very tender part of my anatomy. If any hon. Member ever tries to canvass after having been hit there, he will always thereafter take some interest in rottweiler dogs.
        This is an important issue for Scotland. It is an absolute disgrace and a contemptuous act by the Secretary of State for Scotland to put such an important clause at the tail end of the Bill. It will lead to an important change in Scotland's non-domestic rating system. It has been tagged on to a Bill that has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject; it deals largely with English matters. If the Secretary of State had been prepared to say to the Opposition in Scotland that the Government wanted to introduce a small Scottish Bill to deal with the matter, I am sure that he would have had a fair hearing. However, the Scottish Tories are running so scared that they are not prepared to legislate, if they can possibly avoid it, for Scotland by means of a Scottish Bill and to face up to Scottish Members of Parliament. The way in which the Secretary of State now handles Scottish affairs shows both his cowardice and his contempt of the House of Commons.
        We welcome the change. I have reservations about the uniform business rate, but if there has to be such a rate, Scottish businesses must not be prejudiced or jeopardised. If the Scottish non-domestic rating system were to be left as it is while England and Wales had a uniform business rate, Scottish businesses would be in trouble with their competitors south of the border. We welcome the change, therefore, on those grounds and look forward to its implementation.
        It has taken a lot of pressure from the Opposition, the business community, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities to get the Government to this stage. On 8 May the Secretary of State said that a substantial amount of the money that would be lost to local authorities—£250 million in the longer run—would be made up substantially by the Government in the form of new money. He went on to say that that would have to be found
        "from the resources negotiated in the normal way each year for the Scottish expenditure programme … I will be assuming that local authorities will be willing to play their part by absorbing a small proportion through modest expenditure reductions or efficiency gains."
        The Opposition, local authorities and COSLA want to know exactly what that small proportion is. What proportion of the £250 million will Scottish local authorities have to find?
        This will not apply to all Scottish local authorities. If there is to be equalisation, those local authorities with higher non-domestic rate poundages will find that they are reduced, whereas those local authorities with lower domestic rate poundages will not lose revenue during the transitional period. Local authorities where there is the greatest need, because of social deprivation, unemployment and the need to stimulate the growth of industry in the area, will suffer. What proportion will local authorities have to find? If it is a large proportion, two things could happen. Either local authorities would have to cut services to the public, including the poorest people in society, or —this is perhaps more important—there would be an increase in the poll tax in those local authority areas.
        1004
        We already find in Scotland that the poll tax levels and the poll tax itself are totally abhorrent. It would be absurd if the Government put pressure on local authorities to benefit Scottish business—we accept that it will do that —but poll tax payers, the poor in society, had to pick up the tab. We want a commitment that the Government will pay the whole of the £250 million in grant, preferably in new money, to the Scottish local authorities. That is the fair way to proceed and the way to ensure that the burden is borne not by the people of Scotland but by taxpayers throughout the United Kingdom.
        We welcome this measure, but we also expect answers to my questions. I hope that the Minister can provide them.
        9.45 pm
        Mr. Tony Worthington: The Minister of State has brought a new dimension to the term "brass neck". Only after considerable pressure from all sections of society in Scotland have we been given in the Bill a proposal on the business rate. Unusually, I congratulate the CBI and the chambers of commerce as well as COSLA, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, all sections of society—[Interruption.]—and me—on the pressure that has been put on the Government to move some way towards solving this problem. I congratulate Mr. W. M. Mann, who has ceaselessly lobbied people throughout Scotland, pointing out the unfairness involved. I congratulate the Glasgow Herald as well on its campaign. The Government have claimed credit for their actions, but 11 months ago the Minister of State said that it was a question not of when but of if there would be equalisation. They cannot claim any credit.
        We are talking about a level playing field throughout Europe in 1992, but the Government have found it impossible to allow Scotland to be put on a level playing field in respect of the United Kingdom. They got themselves into an extraordinary muddle. At one stage they said that it would be impossible to have equalisation of rates throughout Great Britain until two complete revaluations had occurred—the revaluation in 1990 and the one in 1995. People inferred, correctly, that there would not be harmonisation of the business rate until the turn of the century.
        We remember all the fuss about the substantial piece of legislation to lay down the level of the poll tax. That is the most contentious issue in the Glasgow, Central by-election. That rate is only 21 per cent. of the income for Scottish local government, whereas this issue is concerned with 28 per cent. What have we had? We have had a statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland to an outside body, and this is the first time that we have had a chance to discuss it in the House.
        It is extraordinary that the Government introduced the poll tax by arguing that local government caused the shut-down of local industry. They have not followed through their logic but have simply index-linked the local business rate. Using their logic, if business in one area has been treated unfairly, they have perpetuated that unfairness. Why did they do that in Scotland? It was because the Minister's own region would have suffered from the harmonisation of rates.
        We have been told that there will be 90 per cent. harmonisation of rating practices in Scotland by 1990. Is it true, however, that some of the most difficult problems

        1005
        will remain? It has been asserted that licensed premises and hotels will be at a considerable disadvantage, with licensed premises paying two and a half times more and some hotels paying five times more in rates than is the case in England and Wales. How quickly will that sort of discrepancy disappear?
        Following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, I must tell the Minister that it is not good enough simply to say that there will be a contribution from local authorities without specifying the size of that contribution. If harmonisation of the business rate in Scotland is done without an almost total contribution from the Treasury through new money, it will be at the expense of the individual poll tax payer. We do not want to buy a pig in a poke. We want to know the dimensions of the settlement and how much local government will have to contribute.
        Mr. James Wallace: The Government's new clauses are important and I do not agree with the Opposition that to introduce them at this stage is wrong per se. If something is good, the sooner that it is brought in the better. The Opposition's criticism is not strong.
        Special provisions were introduced in the 1984 legislation to try to deal with the gross distortions between the Scottish and English valuations. The Government have tried to find some way by which Scottish business could be treated on an equal footing with English business, but it is fair to say that the expectations of the 1984 legislation have not been realised. Obviously some new means must be found.
        Although the Government's proposal is generally welcome, I fear that in some important respects it will be at some cost to local government. For example, we should not overlook the reduction in scope for local accountability and decision-making. Although the statutory consultation with non-domestic ratepayers under the 1984 legislation has had mixed success, in my constituency local councillors were expected to account for their expenditure plans in some detail, perhaps in a way that was more successful than is usually the case at a local government election.
        The proposal means removing from the determination of local government one of its sources of revenue that has some buoyancy. The only scope left for any local discretion and decision-making will be on the level of the poll tax, which is not a particularly buoyant tax. That will be a real loss for local government.
        I want the Minister to consider the problems that will affect my constituency and rural Scotland generally. During questions last Wednesday, the Secretary of State said—and I welcome it—that he was still committed to special arrangements for Orkney and Scotland. He said that his officials would be in touch with local authorities in my constituency to work out the arrangements.
        In my constituency, because of the oil terminals, the proportion of local revenue raised from non-domestic rates is high. Anything affecting that could have a considerable impact on local revenue. I welcome the fact that a pooling of Scottish non-domestic rates is not being proposed, but what has the Minister in mind for making special arrangements? He will be aware that for a number of years Shetland Islands council has tried to repay debts that were incurred to build the infrastructure to cope with the oil developments, so that when the through-put of oil
        1006
        declined the rate burden on the terminals would be less. It is important that non-domestic ratepayers in Shetland, having paid an additional price to store up funds for a rainy day, are not deprived, when that rainy day comes, of an umbrella. I should welcome an assurance on that from the Minister.
        It is clear that Government intend to reduce the rate poundage in Scotland to a level equivalent to that in England and Wales. It has been suggested that, throughout Scotland, rates will inevitably come down. The Government have made it clear that they will not fully compensate local authorities for a reduction in revenue, and one fears that any shortfall will have to be met by the poll tax payer.
        Do the Government have figures showing which authorities in Scotland have a lower non-domestic rate poundage than the average for authorities in England and Wales? When the Secretary of State made his announcement, the director of finance for Grampian region said that it contained insufficient detail. He said:
        "We have the lowest non-domestic rate in Scotland, so fundamentally, we will not get the same degree of benefit as elsewhere. There is also the possibility, depending upon the way the final plans work out, that we could be that little hit worse off."
        Will the Minister give some figures so that we can work out what the likely effects of the Secretary of State's announcement will be? If some local authorities gain more than under the present arrangements, does the Scottish Office plan to dock that from revenue support grant? If so, it would further reduce local authorities' decision-making powers.
        An attempt to put Scottish business on an equal footing with that in England and Wales is welcome. The Minister must be aware that, in rural areas, not least in my constituency, the Government's proposals may lead to problems, and that we are yet to be satisfied about them.
        Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I want to intervene briefly and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who mentioned my area.
        The Secretary of State proposes to fix a rate before we move to a uniform rate. Will the Minister explain how that will be done? In the present circumstances, the rate set would be different from authority to authority, but what criteria will be applied? Will the Secretary of State penalise authorities that have set low rates or those that have set high rates? Will he try to adjust the rate, possibly by taking money from Grampian and transferring it to Lothian or Strathclyde, as he has done under the poll tax? Given the way in which Grampian region has been clobbered, people in the region would like to know that we shall not be clobbered on the business rate.
        What criteria will be applied to the income of local authorities? My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland quoted the director of finance for Grampian region, which reflected the director's concern that Grampian may experience a reduction in rate. I suspect that other authorities may suffer further reductions, without having a firm idea where additional grant will come from and when it will be declared so that they can plan and budget ahead.
        The third question relates to the implications of the second phase—the uniform business rate. The consequence of the uniform business rate is that there will, inevitably, be winners and losers. I am sure that the Minister will have been harangued on this as frequently as

        1007
        I and my colleagues have been, especially by the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses. The point that it made, and that I want to make, is that it seems that lower-rated businesses in rural areas, once we move to a uniform business rate, will inevitably be the losers. Will the Minister acknowledge that that is the case? If not, why not? If it is, what other measures does he propose to introduce to ensure that areas—
        It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Ordered,
      That at this day's sitting, the Local Government and Housing Bill and the Police Officers (Central Service) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Chapman.]

      Local Government and Housing Bill
      As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
      Mr. Bruce: I would like the Minister to explain clearly how the uniform business rate will apply. If it is likely to lead to losers in areas such as rural Grampian, the Borders and the Highlands and Islands, I hope that he will produce other measures to compensate for that. Those are important points. I am sure that the Minister is well aware that businesses in those areas are extremely concerned about the proposals and that the Government have so far failed to meet those concerns.
      Mr. Archy Kirkwood: This is an important debate. I can see some quizzical looks coming from the Treasury Bench. I do not intend to speak for more than a few moments, but I want to continue with the point my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) raised. It is important that those of us who represent areas similar to the Minister's own are given a clear statement by him.
      I detected a note of dissent from the Minister when my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon said that currently low-rated rural areas, such as his and my areas, will suffer from the introduction of the new system. I noticed the Minister strike a note of dissent by vigorously shaking his head. If he is of that view, I should be grateful if, when he brings this short debate to a conclusion, he would spell out why he thinks that we are wrong in taking that view.
      I have talked widely to people in my own area of the Borders. They cannot see how they can be financially advantaged by the new system, which I appreciate and, for reasons I stated earlier, am prepared to support this evening. It is important that the Minister gives time to these technical matters. We are looking some distance into the future, so it is important that the Government take every opportunity to spell out the proposals.
      I have some additional questions. If, in the course of the revaluations in 1990 and 1995, there are big shifts of the non-domestic rate burden between the categories, whether industrial, commercial, offices and shops or factories, that mean there are much heavier burdens on some sectors within those categories, will the Government consider bringing in some relief mechanism? They undertook to do so and I was in favour of the idea. Indeed, I suggested it in 1985, when the last revaluation took place. Will the Government at least keep that option open, as it appears that there are sectors that will be severely prejudiced when the time comes.
      I may have missed this point earlier. I am not trying to be clever, but I thought that the Minister said casually that he thought that the two systems of rating and valuation had almost been reconciled. He seemed to be quite satisfied that that would produce no problems. I should be surprised if that were the case, and I should like to hear what evidence the Minister has. Is he prepared to publish the extent to which that reconciliation has been achieved?

      1009
      There are significant differences between the English and Scottish systems. One is administered and implemented by the Inland Revenue and the other by rating and valuation offices. There is a wide gap there. Some of us fear that, if that reconciliation is not achieved harmoniously and properly and in a considered way, problems will result. Therefore, I hope that the Minister of State will take a moment or two to make sure that some of those real questions and worries are assuaged. I agree with the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) that this is an important issue and I hope that some of the worries expressed in this short debate can be settled.
      Mr. Lang: This has been a valuable debate and it is certainly a very important debate for Scotland. It is worthy of comment that the Scottish National party has not thought fit to be present on this important occasion.
      I welcome the grudging support and acceptance for our proposals that has been given by the Labour party—although the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) complained that we showed a lack of respect in bringing forward this measure at the tail end of this Bill. I suspect that he would like us to put it back for another year. The pretence that the Labour party supports this measure and that it has worked for such harmonisation over a period is absolute nonsense.
      I took the opportunity to look up the Hansard of the Committee stage of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987. The hon. Member for Cathcart then stated:
      "There has been a swing of opinion among Scottish businesses. They increasingly appreciate that local government expenditure is one of their major sources of income. Cuts in rates and Government expenditure make as many businesses less viable and drive as many of them to the wall as increasing their rates does."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee: 20 January 1987, c. 438.]
      That is the kind of out-of-touch, self-deceiving approach that the hon. Member for Cathcart demonstrated in that Committee. He said that reform was not needed and that it would not happen. We believe that it was needed, and we have made it happen.
      The hon. Member for Cathcart has asked me about the amount of assistance from central Government. I made it clear earlier that the assistance will come substantially from the Government, but that we shall expect a modest contribution from the local authorities. Obviously, the details cannot be announced until the autumn. If I point out that in broad terms we are talking about £250 million as the estimated figure to achieve harmony over a period of five or six years and if I say that local authorities spend over £4·5 billion per year, the matter can easily be seen in perspective.
      Mr. Maxton: That does not answer the question. Will the Minister say how much of that £250 million will come from the Exchequer, and how much will have to come from the local authorities?
      Mr. Lang: I have already told the hon. Gentleman, both in my opening speech and just now, that the details of the apportionment will be announced in the autumn in the normal way. It would be quite wrong to announce that in advance—
      Mr. Worthington rose—
      Mr. Lang: No, I shall not give way.
      1010
      I have said that the contribution requested from local authorities will be modest.
      The hon. Member for Cathcart also asked me about the position of local authorities that have to make a substantial adjustment while others may be unaffected, because he expected that they would be below the common business rate that we are seeking to achieve. The hon. Member for Gordon also raised that point and asked about winners and losers. I expect that all local authorities will find that their rates are reduced as a result of this measure, with the exception of Orkney and Shetland which I would expect to be the only ones below the common rate.
      In answer to the specific points about Orkney and Shetland, we have always recognised that a safety net and grant will have to continue to these islands for a long time. We recognise also their policy to repay debt by 1992. Their grant settlement for this year allowed for and recognised that. We intend to continue to take a sensitive approach to the special circumstances of Orkney and Shetland.
      It is natural that, in the apportionment of the criteria that are applied to local authorities when adjusting—a point raised by the hon. Member for Gordon—the higher spenders will be expected to achieve the highest reductions. They are the ones with the most scope for saving, but they are also the ones that are likely to receive larger sums in assistance. Nobody can be in any doubt about the capacity for making modest savings who reflects that the Accounts Commission recently identified a possible saving of £20 million from the school janitor services alone.
      I take exception to the claim by the hon. Member for Gordon that Grampian region has been clobbered for the benefit of Strathclyde in the revenue distribution grant for this year. Strathclyde's revenue grant increased by 7· per cent., while Grampian's increased by 14·6 per cent.— exactly double.
      This is an important measure, which will he of considerable assistance to the business community in Scotland, which will certainly not have been taken in by Labour's protestations. The Labour party did nothing for the business community when it was in office, except through its local authority control, to pile up rate burdens upon it. We have found the solution to its problem. We have announced our plans for implementing it. We shall be bringing it in on the same time scale as the adjustment to the uniform business rate in England. I believe that it will he of considerable advantage to business in Scotland.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      Local Government and Housing Bill
        New Clause 47

          SCOTTISH NON-DOMESTIC RATE
          `(1) For section 3A of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 there shall be substituted the following section—
          "Unified non-domestic rate
          3B.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in respect of each of the financial years specified in subsection (2) below, prescribe a rate which shall be the non-domestic rate to be levied throughout Scotland in respect of that financial year.
          (2) The financial years referred to in subsection (1) above are those beginning with the first financial year after the coming into force of section [Scottish non-domestic rate] of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
          (3) Subject to subsection (4) below, the non-domestic rate shall be levied in accordance with section 7 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 by each rating authority in respect of lands and heritages in their area being lands and heritages—

          1011

          (a) which are subjects (other than part residential subjects) in respect of which there is an entry in the valuation roll, accordingly to their rateable value; or

          (b) which are part residential subjects, according to that part of their rateable value which is shown in the apportionment note as relating to the non residential use of those subjects.

          (4) In the application of section 7 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 to the levying of the non-domestic rate prescribed under this section, for the words "to which the rate relates" in each of subsections (1) and (2) of that section there shall be substituted the words "of the rating authority".'.
          (2) Accordingly—

          (a) references (however expressed) in any enactment to the non-domestic rate determined by or prescribed in relation to a local authority under section 3 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 shall be construed as references to the non-domestic rate prescribed under section 3B of that Act;

          (b) in section 109 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 rating authorities)—

          (i) for paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

          "(a) in the case of the non-domestic rate prescribed under section 3B of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, the regional council and the islands council; and

          (ii) in subsection (2) for the words from "non-domestic district rate" onward there shall be substituted the words "information as may reasonably be required for the preparation of demand notes for the purposes of levying the non-domestic rate".

          (3) For section 110 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (payments by regional councils to district councils in respect of district rates) there shall be substituted the following section—
          "Division between regional and district councils
          110. The Secretary of State may by regulations provide as to the division among the regional council and the councils of the districts within the area of the regional council of the amount collected by way of the non-domestic rate in that area in respect of a financial year.".
          (4) Section 111(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (power to make regulations as to certain matters connected with non-domestic rates) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. Lang.]
          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill

        New clause 51

          RATE SUPPORT GRANT, 1985–86
          "The Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 4) 1985/86 (which was approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on 19th January 1989) shall have effect, and be deemed always to have had effect, as if, in Annex VI (principles for calculating grant-related poundages), for the formula set out in paragraph 4 (grant-related poundages for total expenditure at or above the threshold level) there were substituted—
          "GRP=GRP at GRE+0·69pXthreshold amount
          +0·8625pX(total expenditure-GRE/population—threshold amount)".'
          —[Mrs. Virginia Bottomley.]
          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

        New clause 1

          STANDARD COMMUNITY CHARGE MULTIPLIERS
          `(1) In section 10 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, the following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (6) and (7)—
          "(6) The standard community charge due to a local authority in respect of any financial year shall be the product of—

          (a) the personal community charge; and

          (b) the standard community charge multiplier, determined in respect of that year by the local authority, provided that if the authority sees fit, different multipliers may be determined for properties of different specified classes.

          (6A) A specified class is such class as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
          (6B) If the Secretary of State so requires by regulations, a multiplier for a specified class of property shall not exceed whichever of the following specifies in the regulations as regards the class, namely, 0, ½, 1, 1½ and 2.
          (6C) A class may be specified by reference to such factors as the Secretary of State sees fit.
          (6D) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (6C) above, a class may be specified by reference to one or more of the following factors—

          (a) the physical characteristics of properties

          (b) the fact that properties are unoccupied or are occupied for prescribed purposes or by persons of prescribed descriptions;

          (c) the circumstances of persons subject to standard community charges.

          (6E) In determining the annual revenue support grant, the Secretary of State shall take into account the determination by each local authority of the multiplier for each specified class of property.
          (7) In subsection (6) above the 'standard community charge multiplier,' means whichever of the following, namely 0, ½, 1, 1½ or 2, as the local authority which determines the personal community charge to which the multiplier is applied shall, before such date in each year as may be prescribed, determine.
          2. (1) This section shall come into effect on the day following the passing of this Act.
          (2) This section applies to Scotland only".'.—[Mr. Wallace.]
          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Mr. Wallace: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take the following:
          New clause 6—Power of Sheriff to hear evidence in summary appeals under the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987—
          '(1) After subsection (1) of section 29 of the 1987 Act, there shall be inserted the following subsection—
          "(1A) In considering an appeal under this Act the sheriff may hear evidence by or on behalf of any party to the appeal
          (1B) In this section the "1987 Act" means the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987,"
          (2) This section shall come into force on the day following the day on which it is passed, and shall extend to Scotland only.'.
          New clause 44—Women's refuges—
          'In section 11 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, the following subsection shall be added after subsection (2)—
          "2A. This section does not apply to premises which are used wholly or mainly for the purpose of providing protected accommodation to women who are or have been threatened with or subjected to violence by their husbands or partners; which premises shall be subject to non domestic rates.".'.

        New clause 50

          CHARGES FOR SEWAGE SERVICES (SCOTLAND)
          `(1) In Part II of Schedule 5 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act, 1987, the following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph 18:—
          "(18A) A local authority shall separately identify that amount of the community charge which is attributable to the provision of sewage services, which amount shall be the same proportion of the total community charge, as the amount referred to in paragraph 18 above is of the total estimated expenses mentioned in section 9(2) of the Act.
          (18B) The liability for personal community charge of any person solely or mainly resident at premises whose drains or private sewers are not connected with public sewers or public sewerage treatment work shall be reduced by a sum equal to one half of the amount of community charge which is identifiable as being attributable to the provision of sewerage services in accordance with paragraph (18A) above.
          (18C) Liability for payment of a standard or collective community charge in respect of premises whose drains or private sewers are not connected with public sewers or public sewerage treatment works shall be reduced by an amount equal to the product of—

          (a) the personal community charge less a sum equal to one half of the amount of community charge which is identified as being attributable to the provision of sewerage services in accordance with paragraph (18A) above; and

          (b)

          (i) in the case of premises subject to the standard community charge, the standard community charge multiplier or

          (ii) in the case of premises subject to the collective community charge, the community charge multiplier.".'.

        New clause 53

          REBATE OF WATER CHARGES (SCOTLAND)
          '. (1)—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision obliging a Scottish region or islands area (hereafter referred to as "a local authority") to grant rebates, of amounts determined as provided in the order in respect of the non-domestic water rate in respect of such financial year as is prescribed in the order, on lands and heritages which qualify under subsection (2) below for such rebate.
          (2) The lands and heritages which qualify rebate are lands and heritages in respect of which the non-domestic water rate levied in the financial year are more than one and two thirds times the charge levied in respect of the supply of water to the lands and heritages in the previous financial year.
          (3)

          (a) In subsections (1) and (2) above "the financial year" means the period of twelve months ending with 31st March 1990 or in any year thereafter.

          (b) In subsection (2) above "the previous financial year" means the period of twelve months ending with 31st March 1989 or in any year thereafter.

          (4) An order under this section may contain incidental and supplemental provisions.
          (5) An order under this section can only be made by statutory instrument which shall not have effect until approved by resolution of the House of Commons.'.
          Mr. Wallace: I noted that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, included new clause 53, which I believe is listed separately. However, with the consent of both sides, I will take it with the others.
          I shall explain to hon. Members who are waiting for what I accept is an important debate on dog registration that this issue might take up some time, because there are a number of points all of which, I believe, even the Minister of State would accept are reasonably substantive.
          1014
          I would say to those hon. Members from the Scottish National party and who have campaigned for nonpayment of the poll tax that the right place to campaign for any changes to this monstrous and unjust system of local government finance is on the Floor of the House. That is why we bring forward these new clauses.
          New clause 1 is intended to bring Scotland's poll tax rules for the standard community charge more in line with those that already exist in England and Wales. Clearly, many of us, especially those who represent rural areas, have received many representations about the level of the standard community charge in our constituencies. I, perhaps, am almost unique, because I expect that the Shetland island council is only one of the few councils which has not had a multiplier of two in applying the standard community charge.
          Where there has been an amount of dissatisfaction is in those cases where people over the years have had handed down to them family homes and crofts which they have maintained or which they often use for weekend holidays. They are small houses, probably of little monetary value, but, nevertheless, the fact that they have been handed down from generation to generation means that they mean a lot to the families concerned.
          Up to now, usually because of the location in remote island communities or in remote areas on the mainland, their rateable value has been relatively low and the amount paid in rates for those properties was very low indeed. Those properties are now landed with a standard community charge two times, in most cases, the personal community charge in any given area. Therefore, people who previously were perhaps paying less than £100 now have to pay more than £500 for the pleasure and for the genuine value that they attach to those homes. That has caused considerable aggravation and annoyance. These are not wealthy people who buy second homes in the country. The people hit are people who usually have modest means, and are now faced with the prospect of having to give up homes which they had gone to or occupied for many years. No doubt, in turn, those properties will he bought up by people to use as second homes who will make no long-term contribution to the community.
          There are other anomalies too. In Scotland we are a year ahead of England and Wales and it is only in recent months that we have had to cope with the injustices and anomalies which the poll tax throws up. In some cases, people have taken in elderly relatives to live with them. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to encourage the idea of ill or elderly people living with their families rather than being put into institutional care. Often elderly people are naturally reluctant to give up the homes they have long occupied, and in such cases they have been landed with a standard community charge at twice the given amount. A schizophrenic person in my constituency lives with his mother but refuses to give up his house on one of the remoter islands. No amount of rational explanation that it might be in his interests to do so will make him change his mind—and who is to quibble with a person who makes such a choice? He is landed now with a community charge much higher than the rates he had to pay before.

          1015
          10.15 pm
          What about a person sentenced to prison whose co-habitee or wife no longer stays in the old family home and who has no income at all? His uninhabited home is subject to the standard community charge and he has no income with which to pay it.
          Another great injustice is that people do not qualify in the same way for rebates of the standard community charge—
          Mr. Worthington: Would the hon. Gentleman add to that list the sheer complexity now emerging on caravan sites, on which some people now pay poll tax and others continue to pay rates? Will he also add the complexities involved in the European Community ruling, which has brought in VAT on rents for the first time, and the fact that people now find that they must also pay an additional VAT levy on the rates they pay? This is all part of the confusion that seems to be spreading from the Scottish Office and the Department of the Environment, in which one hand does not know what the other is doing.
          Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point so eloquently. Within the past seven days I have come across a similar case to do with caravans in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight this confusion.
          As I said, a number of anomalies have been thrown up, regarding both property and people. Scotland differs from England and Wales in that under the Scottish legislation the standard community charge must be between one and two times the personal community charge, whereas under section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, English and Welsh local authorities can apply a multiplier, or indeed a fraction, of zero, 0·5, 1, 1·5 or 2. Part of our new clause would put Scottish local authorities in a position similar to that of those in England and Wales. The other part would empower the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations which would specify the classes of property or persons for which local authorities could set different multipliers. That woud give local authorities the flexibility that is necessary if they are to administer an unjust tax with a lesser degree of injustice.
          The Minister of State knows that my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) has corresponded copiously with him about this matter, yet he tries to maintain that Scotland is no different from England and Wales and that Scottish local authorities can still exercise considerable discretion about whether to apply a multiplier of one. Although that may be true of one or two cases, many Scottish local authorities have been obliged to set a multiplier of two in the knowledge that if they did not they would lose revenue, because they believe that the revenue support grant that they receive is dictated by the assumption that a multiplier of two will apply. If the Minister of State wishes to deny that that is the underlying assumption in the revenue support grant, I shall give way to him because that would be welcome news.
          Mr. Lang: That is the underlying assumption, but it does not necessarily mean that all local authorities would have lost money if the assumption had been different. The assumption is used as a basis for the distribution of a fixed
          1016
          sum of money. Some local authorities on an assumption of a multiplier of one would have had more money and some would have had less.
          Mr. Wallace: It is not even very late but arithmetically the Minister's intervention defeats me. He is saying that he takes into account that income is based on the assumption of a multiplier of two, but if there is a multiplier of one the income will be lower. He must explain this further when he replies to the debate. On any rational view there would be net losers. That element of discretion does not exist.[interruption.]
          Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are a number of conversations going on in the Chamber, which shows great discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman who is moving the new clause. I would be obliged if those who want to hold conversations would do so on the other side of the swing doors.
          Mr. Wallace: Our new clause says:
          "In determining the annual revenue support grant, the Secretary of State shall take into account the determination by each local authority of the multiplier for each specified class of property."
          He will not make an assumption that everyone will go for the highest possible option.
          New clause 6 seeks to clarify the powers of a sheriff to hear evidence in summary appeals under the poll tax legislation. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the points that I intend to make, because we have corresponded about the new clause following a case in my constituency. I can make only brief reference to that case because I think that, technically, it is still subject to a possible appeal to the Court of Session. The sheriff found that he was unable to hear evidence on an appeal about the reasons why my constituent did not give information about the date of birth of his co-habitee. The sheriff took the view that legislation, in particular section 64(5) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and section 39(5) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, give specific power to the sheriff on summary appeal to hear evidence. The 1987 Act does not.
          In that context there is also the opinion of the Lord President in the Court of Session in the case of Cigarro against the City of Glasgow licensing board. In that case the Lord President states:
          "The proper starting point for ascertaining the precise limits of a sheriff's powers in dealing with an appeal which is disposed of as in a summary application is a statute which provides for the particular appeal to the sheriff, the statute which enables him to entertain and determine it."
          For example, appeals to the sheriff may be made on the reasons for not providing certain information in the registration form. They can also arise in terms of a dispute about the location of a person's sole or main residence. I think that there is legal doubt about the matter and the new clause seeks to put the matter beyond doubt. It would enable those who wish to give evidence to explain why a course of action has been pursued or why they believe themselves to be resident in a specific area, to be allowed to give evidence before the sheriff. It does not in any way strike at the heart of the Government's community charge legislation and I hope that the Minister will be able to give a positive response.
          New clause 44 seeks to exempt women's refuges from the scope of the collective community charge. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) will deal with that matter at great length if he catches your

          1017
          eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. Under the legislation, if a person leaves home the partner is liable for the poll tax. That means that under current legislation a person could be charged the poll tax twice.
          Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There is no poll tax.
          Mr. Wallace: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) says that there is no poll tax.
          Dame E. Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman should describe correctly the legislation passed by the House.
          Mr. Wallace: Sellafield or Windscale, poll tax or community charge—it is all the same thing.
          New clause 50 deals with charges for sewerage services in Scotland. Aggravation is felt by people who are not connected to the main sewerage but who are nevertheless assessed for full liability to the community charge, a position which is distinct from those who are not connected to a mains water system. In other words, if one is not connected to what is coming in, one does not have to pay the community charge water rate, but if one is not connected to what goes out, one is still fully liable for the charge. It is clear from my postbag that a number of people regard this as an injustice.
          I accept the public health argument that as a community as a whole we benefit from the provision of a sewerage service. That is why the new clause does not seek to give a total exemption from any liability to make a contribution towards the provision in a community of sewerage services. It would simply reduce that contribution by 50 per cent.
          I anticipate it being said that a similar case could be made for those who do not send their children to a local authority school or those who do not make use of the public library. I repeat that such a distinction is already made by the Government in respect of water charges. Also, when some years ago one of my constituents complained about having to pay for clearing septic tanks, the then Under-Secretary, Michael Ancram, said that while there was a point to the argument, in Scotland the fact that one was not connected to the main sewers could be taken into account by the assessor when determining the rateable value of the premises. With the introduction of the poll tax system, there is now no benefit to be accrued by those who are not connected to the main sewers, and the new clause tries to take account of that.
          I regret that the structure of our debates is such that important matters such as this have to be debated late at night. The final point I must raise in dealing with this series of new clauses concerns particularly the business community in Grampian and Highland regions, where metered water charges have placed a considerable burden on local government. Our proposal is a stalking horse to enable us to raise that point, and I will leave my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon to deal with it in more detail.
          In addition to non-domestic water rates, the whole issue of metered water charges must be considered. We have chosen an arbitrary figure. We have used the basis of rebates which were set out by the Government in their legislation which followed revaluation in 1985. We cannot, from the Opposition, put forward a provision that any
          1018
          sums that a local authority is obliged to rebate should be reimbursed by central Government. The rules of the House preclude us from tabling such a provision.
          We were anxious to raise the matter on the Floor of the House because the Minister of State is alleged to have said in an informal conversation with the Federation of Small Businesses that there were no legislative possibilities for him to do anything about a problem which hon. Members in all parts of the House accepts exists. We have, as we debate this measure, such a legislative opportunity. The wording of what we propose may be far from perfect, but if the Government wish seriously to address themselves to a problem that is harming the business community in the Grampian and Highland regions they could act now. This debate may prompt them to take that opportunity when the Bill is in another place.
          10.30 pm
          Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has told my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that there is no such thing as a poll tax. When the Government launched an advertising campaign in Scotland to tell people that they could pay the community charge by direct debit, their advertising agency found that nobody knew what the community charge was. The advertisement, paid for by the Government, therefore had to say,
          "When you pay your community charge or poll tax, you can do it by direct debit."
          Even the Government have been forced to acknowledge that we have a poll tax.
          New clause 1 relates to the community charge on holiday homes or second homes, which has caused considerable problems in Scotland. Scotland was a guinea pig because the legislation implementing the poll tax in Scotland went through before that implementing the poll tax for England and Wales. An enormous number of anomalies have cropped up. As a result, the legislation for England and Wales is different from that for Scotland. It seems reasonable that the changes in criteria that it was thought would make the legislation for England and Wales fairer should be applied to Scotland and that is what we are trying to do.
          I am not arguing against people who have holiday homes paying community charge on them. That seems reasonable although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland said, there are degrees of holiday homes. I have had exchanges with the Minister about the injustice in the fact that a Barrett's timeshare development qualifies for a non-domestic rate, but when a farmer lets out two of his cottages he has to pay double community charge on them, but in Scotland only. That is a monumental injustice and is contrary to the Government's intention to allow farmers and others who live in rural areas to diversify their income. It is a disincentive, and the Government have a duty to ensure that it is put right.
          Some tenant farmers have either inherited or bought a croft or cottage for their retirement. One would have thought that the Conservative party would be in favour of people in tied accommodation having somewhere of their own to retire to, but such people are having to pay double poll tax—once on the farmhouse in which they live as a tenant farmer and once on their retirement cottage. Often, such a household would have been paying nothing in rates,

          1019
          but now has to pay £1,200 to £1,400 out of untaxed income. Is it any wonder that the Tory party is losing support in rural areas?
          Mr. Lang: What about your constituency?
          Mr. Bruce: I have no qualms. I have just been round my constituency and I did not find many people saying that they would vote for the Tories.
          New clause 44 deals with the way in which women's refuges are treated. I have had correspondence with the Minister about this and am waiting for a reply from him. The women's refuges which operate in Aberdeen have been in touch with me, and one operates in my constituency. These provide secure refuges to which women can retreat when they have been battered by their husbands or partners. It is regrettable that this happens—it always has—but it is a positive development that there are now organisations willing to set up and run such refuges, always as charities which rely on voluntary raising of funds.
          Until now, such refuges have been treated as hospitals and rated accordingly. Now the Government are saying that they have to be treated as a multiple-occupancy dwelling in which every individual has to pay poll tax. That presents severe practical problems. The women entering those refuges do so at short notice, and may remain there for a very short time or for a longer period. On arrival they are in an emotionally and physically stressed condition. Organisations whose prime objective is to provide such women with support are not in a position to hammer them for money. Yet the Government are saying that that is what refuges must do.
          That is an unsympathetic attitude which underestimates the difficulties facing those organisations and the additional stress placed on the women concerned. Worse still, those women will have left homes where they are jointly and severally liable to pay poll tax along with their husbands or partners. The husband or partner may already have paid the woman's share of poll tax and will remain liable to pay it. The Government are in effect pressing for additional revenue by taxing individuals who are already in an extremely distraught and emotional state.
          If that is the kind of treatment that the Government want to mete out, it is no wonder that they are seen as heartless philistines—which, in the circumstances that I have described, they are. The number of women involved is relatively small and the circumstances extremely stressful, but still the Government aim to collect double tax. The Minister must make a response which both shows compassion and answers the question of whether women in such circumstances should be pressed to pay the poll tax twice.
          My final point relates to new clause 53, which concerns non-domestic water rates, including the general standard and metered rates. I raised that matter in an Adjournment debate, and it has been the subject of considerable correspondence with the Minister. We believe that the Bill presents an opportunity for a legislative change which would ensure that companies currently confronted with draconian increases threatening not only their profitability but in some cases their viability may know that there is a limit to the rates that they will be expected to pay.
          1020
          The Government may say that they disapprove of such a measure, but they introduced similar legislation at the time of the last property revaluation in Scotland. There was a massive revolt among Conservative supporters in the business community about the revaluation's implications and the extra charges that it would impose.
          On that occasion emergency legislation was rushed through the House, with all-party support, to limit the amount of the increase that any business would have to absorb. The purpose of the proposed new clause is to provide similar protection for businesses faced with the same prospect as a consequence of the poll tax or community charge.
          I was told by Grampian regional council today that it is very concerned about the implications of the charge. It has taken positive helpful measures, including a series of meetings with businesses at which it sought to offer advice on increasing the efficiency of water operations with a view to reducing waste. The council issued 38 information packs, offered consultancy advice to nine companies, and received one application for grant assistance. That shows a constructive attitude and a positive response.
          I hope that the Minister accepts that a 109 per cent. increase in water charges still represents a severe burden. He acknowledges that the scope for manoeuvre was limited and that Grampian complied with the law. The increase in the Highland region was 72 per cent. and in Midlothian and Strathclyde it was 64 to 66 per cent. That sort of increase is a serious burden on companies. So far, the Government's ability to deal with the problem has given no satisfaction. Essentially, they have said, "That is the law. Grampian have interpreted it in one way. It is open to a different interpretation, but on balance that is right because that is what they have to do and the businesses will just have to lump it." Businesses should not have to expect such treatment. Given the Government's previous new clause 47 about the fixing of the new uniform business rate, it goes against the grain that they feel unable to intervene and help in this case.
          Given the treatment that has been meted out and the hardship that has been imposed on businesses in the Grampian region, the Minister must understand that there is little willingness to believe that what the Government propose in the form of their new rates measures for businesses will be beneficial. In a previous debate I raised the concerns in the Grampian region, but the Minister did not answer my questions. What we are proposing today shows, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland said, that we who believe in parliamentary democracy are putting the amendments in the right place—the House of Commons. The Scottish National party Members are conspicuous by their absence. They rarely appear in the House, but stalk the country talking about illegal action, confrontation and extra-parliamentary action. At the end of the day, however, they achieve nothing but failure.
          We come here in a constructive spirit to put the arguments to the Government, reflecting the clear representations which have been made to us on behalf of business, and asking for a constructive response. The points that have been raised deserve a serious and, I hope, sympathetic reply from the Minister.
          Mr. Lang: I shall certainly respond to the points that have been raised in the debate, which has covered five entirely unrelated subjects. Opposition Members cannot,

          1021
          therefore, he blamed for taking slightly longer than expected. I know that the House wishes to make progress and so I shall stick closely to the amendments which have been tabled.
          On new clause 1, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) spoke mainly about the decision of all Scottish local authorities, except Western Isles and Shetland, to choose to impose a multiplier of two, twice as high as they need have done. However, the intention of his new clause is to bring Scotland in line with England and Wales with regard to the standing community charge arrangements, particularly for setting standard community charge multipliers.
          However, the new clause is based on a misconception that there are significant differences between the position north and south of the border and that the English and Welsh arrangements are more flexible. That is not so as I shall seek to explain. There are some technical differences between setting the standard charge in Scotland, and doing so in England and Wales. The key point is that in all three countries local authorities have discretion to set the multiplier up to a maximum of twice the community charge for their area.
          In Scotland, local authorities' discretion starts at a multiplier of one. They can set a standard community charge multiplier at any point between one and two times the level of the personal community charge, and the multiplier which is determined will apply to any property which may be liable for the standard community charge in a local authority area.
          Authorities in England and Wales will be able, subject to certain restrictions, to set multipliers at one of five different specific levels: nought, a half, one, one and a half or two. However, the range of properties liable for the standard charge is smaller in Scotland than in England and Wales. That is because certain Scottish properties do not attract the charge, either by virtue of a specific exemption, such as homes of people who go into hospital on a long-term basis, or by virtue of being retained in rating, for example properties which are not suitable for occupation throughout the year. Equivalent properties in England and Wales will be liable for the standard charge but maximum multipliers will be imposed on them by regulations, for example, nought for the homes of long-term hospital patients and one for planning properties of which the planning conditions do not permit them to be occupied throughout the year.
          Mr. Malcolm Bruce: My understanding is that, provided there is no closing order on them, properties which are not occupied throughout the year are levied for the full standard community charge. That is certainly true in my constituency. Is the Minister saying that that is not right?
          Mr. Lang: It is not for me to question the decision of the community charge registration officer, but these are matters for appeal if they come into contention.
          While the English and Welsh arrangements allow for different multipliers for different classes of property, it is important to realise that the different classes of property are closely defined and that there is no discretion for a local authority to determine its own classes of property for which it will set different multipliers.
          In broad terms, the properties in respect of which the English and Welsh local authorities will be able to exercise
          1022
          discretion to set a multiplier of up to two will be comparable to those properties in Scotland, which will be liable for the standard community charge.
          I should make it clear that English local authorities have still to determine what multipliers to set on second homes. It is not possible, therefore, to compare outcomes between Scotland and England. If there are differences between Scotland and England in the way in which people are treated in practice, that is more likely to be because local authorities in each country have chosen to use the discretion that is available to them differently rather than because of technical differences in the arrangements for setting the standard charge. This could arise if English authorities decided to set the multiplier at less than the maximum of two, which has been adopted by virtually all Scottish local authorities. In these circumstances I do not consider the new clause to be necessary or desirable.
          10.45 pm
          New clause 6, which was spoken to by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), relates to a specific interest on which he has expressed concern in the past, which is whether evidence can be heard at community charge appeals before the sheriff. We have given detailed consideration to the hon. Gentleman's proposals. I have already made it clear to him in correspondence that I consider his proposals unnecessary because under summary application procedures, under which community charge appeals are heard, the sheriff can effectively act as he thinks appropriate. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of our concern not to prejudice this general position. We are obviously concerned, however, that there should be no possible doubt that evidence can be heard. In the light of the particular case which has aroused the present concern, I would propose to consider whether we should introduce an amendment in another place along the lines of new clause 6, but making it clear that the power would be without prejudice to the generality of summary application procedures as provided for in the Sheriff Courts Act 1907. On the basis of that undertaking, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his new clause.
          New clause 50 relates to sewerage. I listened carefully to the arguments which were advanced but I am not persuaded that payment towards domestic sewerage Js any different from payment for other services which are included within the community charge. There are not enough reductions for those who have to maintain private roads, or who do not make use of the education system or who may not have access to a public library. There are many other examples. To concede that special arrangements should be made for sewerage would lead to a proliferation of requests for relief from payment towards services which are not provided or utilised. It would make the community charge register more complex and would introduce additional administrative costs.
          Mr. Wallace: I anticipated that the Minister would refer to private roads and public libraries, but surely sewerage provision is most comparable to water supply. The Government have made a distinction between those whose properties are connected to mains water and those whose properties are not. Why make that distinction in respect of what comes in but not in respect of what comes out?
          Mr. Lang: That is partly because it was our purpose in making changes to the community charge under the common business rate to minimise the disruption to the existing system. In the past there have been separate arrangements for water, which we have carried forward under a new guise. There were no formal arrangements of that sort for the reasons that I have described.
          The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) spoke about women's refuges when he directed himself to new clause 44. I thought that his remarks were wholly intemperate and inappropriate on a matter on which we have shown great concern. We have received a number of representations from Women's Aid about the designation of women's refuges as collective community charge establishments, and the present arrangements were introduced to meet the requirements of Women's Aid. However, we have decided to act upon its subsequent representations and to introduce regulations that will have the effect of moving the refuges back into rating. Officials from my Department met representatives of Women's Aid last week to discuss these proposals. I hope to be in a position to lay regulations before the House quite soon. I think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were entirely misplaced because we have responded not once but twice, and comprehensively, to the attitude of Women's Aid.
          New clause 53 is directed to the non-domestic water rate. Occasionally an amendment or new clause misses the bull's eye, but new clause 53 misses the target altogether. The source of the complaint is the impact of metered water charges. Other water charges, to which the new clause relates, have not increased in the Grampian region. The fact is that they have decreased. Non-metered water charges were 8·16p in the pound last year and they are now 7p in the pound.
          The new clause has been tabled on the assumption that non-domestic water ratepayers need some relief, but the hon. Gentleman has failed to take account of the fact that in only two regions do non-domestic water rates amount to more than one and two thirds times last year's domestic water rate, which then applied also to the non-domestic sector. Last year, both regions levied a public water rate which we have now abolished.
          If that were taken into account, the increases in those regions would be nowhere near the two thirds limit that the hon. Gentleman seeks to invoke. The new clause is misconceived. It would breach the fairness provisions that we were at pains to introduce in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. Act. Any concessions would have to be paid for by other water users and would introduce additional administrative costs. For those reasons, I cannot accept the new clause.
          Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, even though it was fairly short, for understandable reasons.
          His reply to new clause 1 was wholly unconvincing. The relevant legislation shows that there are clear differences between Scotland and England. They are not on a par. England can have a multiplier of less than one, but Scotland cannot. The Minister completely failed to respond to the points that were made about holiday cottages and prisoners. The Government have missed an opportunity to rectify some of the injustices in the implementation of the community charge.
          As for sewerage, the Minister failed to convince us that water should be treated differently from sewerage. Schedule 5 to the 1987 Act shows that, unlike libraries or private roads, a local authority is obliged to calculate separately its sewerage costs and apportion them between different categories of payers. Sewerage is dealt with in that Act in a way that makes it different from the other services. The Minister's reply—that the charge will not be reduced for supplies to those who are not connected to the main sewerage system—lacked conviction. It is a matter to which we shall return.
          As for water charges, if the Minister had listened to what was said he would have realised that we appreciate that the new clause is not drafted as well as it might be. We referred to meter charges. I am always suspicious when Ministers say that the defect lies in the drafting of Opposition amendments. He did not address the issue. The Minister told the business community that there was no legislative opportunity to do anything about this problem. We have proved that he was wrong. He has failed to take that opportunity. I hope that it will be dealt with in another place.
          I thank the Minister for having gone some way towards meeting two other points that we raised. I heard what he said about appeals. I welcome the fact that he is giving some thought to the matter and that he intends to ensure that an amendment is tabled in another place to make clear what are the sheriff's powers, while not compromising other legislation.
          I welcome also his announcement about women's refuges. It underlines the point that I made at the outset. Those of us who complain about the poll tax and who believe in parliamentary democracy feel that we must make our arguments in this place. There has been some response from the Government tonight, which shows that those who have neither attended nor contributed to the debate and who only bluster have failed the people of Scotland. It is the Social and Liberal Democrats who stand up and tackle the poll tax in the one way that can be effective.
          Question put and negatived.

        New Clause 13

          INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY
          `Schedule (Preservation of individual privacy) to this Act (which amends the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987) shall have effect.'——[Mr. Cohen.]
          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 7:
          `PRESERVATION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY

          1. The Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 shall be amended as mentioned in the following provisions of this Schedule.

          2. For the purpose of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and the Local Government Finance Act 1988, section 26(3) of the Data Protection Act 1984 and Schedule 1, Part II, paragraph 1(2) of the Data Protection Act 1984 (Interpretation of the First Data Protection Principal) shall apply.

          3. In Section 20(2)(a) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 the words "only for a purpose associated with the proper maintenance of a community charge" shall be inserted after the word "inspect".

          4. In Schedule 2, at the end of section 17(2) (Inspection etc.) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, the words "only for a purpose associated with the proper maintenance of a community charge" shall be inserted.

          5. Information concerning an individual who is subject to a community charge can only be disclosed by a registration officer or charging authority either:

          (a) with the consent of that individual, or

          (b) to another registration officer or charging authority for a purpose associated with the proper maintenance of a community charge.

          6. It shall be an offence for any individual or organisation to hold or process personal data, as defined by the Data Protection Act 1984, that are wholly or in part obtained directly or indirectly from more than one community charges register, except where

          (a) two different charging authorities or registration officers hold personal data for the purpose of the management of community charge when an individual changes his address and becomes subject to a community charge in one of the authorities, or

          (b) an individual is subject to more than one community charge, or

          (c) the individual who is liable to pay a community charge, has consented to the holding or processing of his personal data.

          7. Information relating to the date of birth of individuals liable to pay a community charge may only be retained by a registration officer or charging authority if:

          (a) there is more than one individual liable to pay a community charge resident at a specific address, and

          (b) the resident individuals have the same surname and initials, and

          (c) there is no other simple means of identifying the resident individuals.

          8. Sections 13, 14 and 15 of Schedule 2 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 are repealed.

          9. Where a department of a charging authority or precepting authority is requested to provide information concerning an individual to a registration officer, the department may refuse that request if the department has reasonable cause to believe that the request for information:

          (a) may cause serious degradation of a service provided by the department to that individual, or

          (b) is unreasonable in terms of the cost to provide the information, or

          (c) will breach an obligation to meet a duty of confidentiality.

          1026

          10. Section 20(2)(c) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, and section 29 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 shall be replaced by

          "An electoral registration officer shall not sell the electoral register for purposes not associated with the election process if the officer uses any community charges register as a means of improving the accuracy of the electoral register".'.
          Mr. Cohen: I shall be brief because hon. Members wish to consider the dog registration scheme, which I support. The amendment is similar to my Poll Tax (Registration of Individual Privacy) Bill which appears at column 162 of Hansard on 14 February 1989. I shall not repeat the arguments. The poll tax has a commercial exploitation and police state potential. It presents opportunities for enormous abuse of individual privacy. Until now the Government have handled this aspect very poorly and adopted a couldn't-care-less attitude.
          A farrago of misinformation and half-truths has been given to the public, and inadequate and inappropriate information has been given to local authorities by the Government, partly because they have not worked out the details properly. This is causing considerable and increasing consternation to the public. My measures restrict the collection and use of personal information by the community registration officer and the charging authority to purposes associated with the poll tax. This means that the information cannot be passed on for use for junk mail, determining credit ratings or vetting. My measures apply also to the principles and procedures of the Data Protection Act 1984 as they affect the collection and use of poll tax personal information.
          There have been some odd questions on the registration forms that have been sent out in the past few weeks. Trafford has asked about the relationship of everyone in the household. Is that ultra vires? Hounslow and Solihull councils have asked who owns the furniture and where it is kept. Is that ultra vires? Croydon council has said that the local authority may use information for other "registered" purposes. That is not right. On 23 February, in an answer to me, the Minister for Local Government said:
          "Community charges registration officers and charging authorities have no power to disclose data contained in registers to any third party other than those specified in 1he Local Government Finance Act 1988 and regulations to be made under it."—[Official Report, 23 February 1989; Vol. 147, c. 732.]
          That message has not got through to Croydon or, presumably, other local authorities. Will the Minister confirm that the information must not be used other than by community charge registration officers and the charging authority or for any purpose other than the community charge? Will he confirm also that the information must not be used internally by a local authority for any purpose other than the community charge? The Minister must give an unequivocal assurance. Will he confirm that Croydon council is acting ultra vires?
          Privacy rights are being seriously eroded by the poll tax. The likelihood that the abuse will worsen is a menace to hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens. It is better that the Government should adopt the protective privacy measures in my amendment and new clause.
          The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I am happy to confirm my answer to the hon. Gentleman that the information which is requested for the purposes of the community charge may not be used for

          1027
          other purposes. We have been particularly concerned to protect people's rights. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a person who fears that he or she may be in some danger can even have his name removed from the list so that it is not available. It can only be shown; it cannot be copied or written down. An individual will, of course, see his or her own details on the list to ensure that it is accurate. The hon. Gentleman need have none of the worries that he has expressed. The law is very particular in the protection that it gives people and it gives community charge officers a restricted ability to gain information. They can gain only specific pieces of information—name and address being two, and age, when that is material to a person coming on to the community charge list at 18.
          This is not the time of night to raise a controversial matter, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at his proposals and apply them to the Labour party's proposals to have two taxes, one of which would mean that local income tax information would have to be held in every town hall—which is an incursion into people's freedoms and rights. It would be interesting to see whether people in Leyton appreciate the idea that details of their pay slips and such would have to be held. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would like to apply his mind to that. Information on the ownership and value of everybody's home would have to be held also.
          Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that under the Labour proposals one would pay the tax even on a tenanted property that one did not own? [interruption.]
          Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend should not be led astray by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who rarely speaks other than from a sedentary position. I fear that my hon. Friend is perfectly right in what she says. The tenant would pay on the freehold value of his house, even though he would not gain any benefit from it.
          11 pm
          Whereas the regulations under the community charge are tightly drawn and present no threat to civil liberty, I could not say the same about the two-tax system that the Labour party is putting forward and which the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) supports—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members do not understand that, they should ask to see the letters which show the distinction between the two systems. I think that the country understands.
          I hope that the hon. Member for Leyton will now accept that his worries are unfounded and that there is no need for his new clause.
          Mr. Cohen: I do not accept what the Minister has said because both a system of rates and a system of income tax are currently in operation. I do not agree that privacy would be more adversely affected. I have already referred to my ten-minute Bill, in which I set out a whole series of invasions of privacy—such as women being hassled under the cohabitation rules. The proof will be in the eating and the Minister will face the consequences.
          In the interests of time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
          Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

        New Clause 16

          HABITATION (STANDARD)
          '.—(1) A local authority may draw up a scheme for the improvement of housing conditions in its area.
          (2) Such a scheme may contain reference to a standard (to be known as "The Habitation Standard") to which all dwellings should conform.
          (3) The standard referred to in subsection (2) above shall include, but not be restricted to the provisions of Section 604 of the Housing Act 1985.
          (4) The standard referred to in subsection (2) above may include the following matters:

          (a) any dwelling should be free from substantial or significant disrepair (including electrical, gas and water supply facilities);

          (b) any dwelling should be substantially free from damp and not prone to condensation;

          (c) any dwelling should have adequate natural and artificial lighting and ventilation in all rooms in circulation areas;

          (d) any dwelling shall have adequate space heating;

          (e) any dwelling should have an adequate supply of wholesome water within the house;

          (f) any dwelling should have within it satisfactory facilities for the preparation and cooking of food, including a sink with a supply of hot and cold water;

          (g) any dwelling shall have a we for the use of the occupants, suitably located within the dwelling;

          (h) any dwelling shall have a suitably located fixed bath of shower provided with a satisfactory supply of hot and cold water;

          (i) any dwelling shall have a suitably located wash hand basin with an adequate supply of hot and cold water;

          (j) any dwelling shall have an effective system for the drainage and disposal of foul, waste and surface water;

          (k) any dwelling shall be so arranged internally as to ensure the safety of the occupants;

          (l) any dwelling shall have satisfactory thermal insulation, and an adequate overall energy performance;

          (m) any dwelling shall have satisfactory sound insulation;

          (n) any dwelling shall be free from progressive instability;

          (o) any dwelling shall, wherever practicable, have a safe electrical supply and installation;

          (p) any dwelling shall be so located that the immediate environmental factors are tolerable;

          (q) the habitable rooms of any dwelling shall comprise a minimum size as specified by the Secretary of State for the Environment;

          (r) any dwelling shall be free from noxious or hazardous substances.

          (5) Before taking action in pursuance of a scheme drawn up under subsection (1) above, the local authority shall seek the consent of the Secretary of State which shall not be unreasonably withheld.'.—[Mr. Battle.]
          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Mr. John Battle: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          Parts V, VI, VII and VIII of the Bill refer to housing. If at this late stage of the evening we began to discuss the issue of minimum standards, it might be crowded out of the agenda and not receive a decent debate. I shall not pursue the matter now, but will return to it on Third Reading.
          I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
          Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

        New Clause 22

          ENDING OF AUTOMATIC RIGHT OF CERTAIN FUTURE SHARED OWNERS IN RURAL AREAS TO ACQUIRE THE FREEHOLD
          Part V of the Housing Act 1985 (the Right to Buy) shall be amended by the inclusion of the following section after Section 153:
          "153A—(1) A secure tenant shall not be entitled to exercise the Right to Buy under this Part in respect of a dwelling house in a rural area if he enters into a shared ownership lease of that dwelling house after the 30th June 1989 unless he was a tenant of such house before the shared ownership lease was entered into.
          (2) No condition shall be attached by the Secretary of State to the payment of subsidy to a housing association or local housing authority, or to the disposal of land by a local housing authority, which would require such association or authority to grant shared owners a right to acquire the freehold.
          (3) For the purposes of this section a rural area means—

          (a) a national park;

          (b) an area designated under section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as an area of outstanding natural beauty; or

          (c) an area designated by order of the Secretary of State as a rural area under section 157.".'.—[Mr. Jopling.]

          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Mr. Michael Jopling: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this we shall discuss the following amendments to the new clause: (a), in line 1, leave out 'Part V' and insert 'Part II'.
          (b), in line 1, leave out `(the Right to Buy)' and insert
          `(Provision of Housing Accommodation)'.
          (c), in line 2, leave out 'Section 153' and insert 'Section 32'.
          (d), in line 3, leave out '153A' and insert '32A'.
          (e), in line 3, leave out subsection (1).
          (f), in line 7, leave out '(2)' and insert
          `(1) In a rural area'.
          (g), in line 9, after 'land', insert
          `by a housing association or'.
          (h), in line 10, leave out 'the freehold' and insert
          'more than a 62½ per cent. share'.
          Mr. Jopling: For a long time many hon. Members, especially those who represent rural areas, have felt that more needed to be done to provide greater opportunities for local people to continue to live and work in the rural areas where they were born and brought up. I am not alone in hearing the pleas of my constituents and people throughout Britain's rural areas who are much too frequently priced out by those seeking second or holiday homes. That prevents people from staying in the areas where they have been born and brought up. The House will not be surprised to hear that that is a particular problem in the Lake district, which falls within my constituency, and the same problem can be found in all rural areas.
          It is necessary to take new initiatives to make housing in rural areas more easily available to local people.
          Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is there not a substantial effect on schools in rural areas? If properties are purchased for second or holiday homes, there are fewer children to attend those schools, and they might have to close.
          Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend, as usual, is right, but I should get into trouble with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I allowed myself to be diverted by her understandable anxieties, which I share, about rural schools.
          Last year, I moved a new clause to the Housing Bill, which the Government, in their wisdom, accepted. I believe that it has gone some way to helping local people in rural areas to live where they were born and brought up. This year, I moved new clause 22 on the advice, partly, of the Association of District Councils and the National Federation of Housing Associations. Both bodies strongly feel that it is necessary to change the Bill to embrace the provisions of new clause 22.
          I am extremely grateful to the many Conservative Members who have been kind enough to sign my new clause—seven new names were added to it this morning—and a number of others, who have told me that they support it although they have not signed it. I have a wad of copy letters that have been written by various district councils throughout the country to me or my hon. Friends asking us to support the new clause.
          Mr. Battle: If the Government do not concede the points that the right hon. Gentleman is making, will he confirm that he will be prepared to press the new clause to a vote?
          Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to make my own speech. I fully expect the Government to see the sense of my argument. If he had looked at the Order Paper over the past few weeks, he would be aware that enough Conservative Members have supported the new clause to put the fear of God into the Government Chief Whip.
          The purpose of the new clause is to create, and, much more important, to maintain, a permanent stock of houses in rural areas for those who are not sufficiently well off to buy more than a share in a house as a first step towards full house ownership. All hon. Members are aware of constituents to whom we have said, "Why don't you buy a house?" only for them to say, "We can't afford to do so." However, they could afford to buy a half share. At present, the law says that people can buy a share in a house—say, 50 per cent.—and then staircase their way up to 100 per cent. Of course that is good, but the downside is that the house is lost for future part owners to take the first step on the lower rungs of the ladder, which is so important in the move to full ownership.
          I received a letter within the past few days from an organisation called North Housing, which is signed by Mr. John Sutcliffe, whom many of my colleagues will recall as an hon. Member in the early 1970s. It is interesting to note that the address of North Housing is Ridley house in Newcastle, and I understand that the organisation North Housing was set up by the family of the Secretary of State for the Environment years ago. The letter says:
          "It clearly shows that over time, the ethos of shared ownership is being seriously undermined if second and subsequent purchasers are unable to be helped in the same way as first purchasers."
          That is a familiar theme that I have heard from the organisations which are so keen on new clause 22.
          New clause 22 allows part ownership to rise to a maximum of 62·5 per cent., which is the figure proposed in the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison). I have collaborated with him in those amendments, which I fully support and accept. They

          1031
          were drawn up on the recommendation of the organisations which have proposed these measures. The figure of 62·5 per cent. is not sacrosanct, because it is open to discussion. It means that, once the part owner has reached 62·5 per cent. of ownership of the house, he then has two options. He can sit pat and accept that he will never own 100 per cent. of the house. If he is content to continue to own only 62·5 per cent., as we propose, he could do so for as long as he wanted.
          The second option is that he could move out of the house, and put the 62·5 per cent. of the value of the house, which is his nest egg, enhanced as it probably would be by the increased value of the house during the time that he had been paying it off, into another house, thus setting off again to move towards 100 per cent. ownership of that second house. The advantage of that arrangement under new clause 22 is that the first house would revert to the ownership of either the local authority or the housing association and it would soon be available for another family to embark on the same process of part ownership, moving eventually to full ownership of a different house.
          The Government have recognised already the need to manage the housing market to take account of the problem of rural housing. I very much welcome the Government's announcement in February of their assistance for local people in rural areas. The Government have said that they intend to get over the problem I have explained by allowing part owners of houses to staircase up to 100 per cent. ownership, but then the Government propose to apply an artificial constraint by allowing those owners who have staircased up to 100 per cent. to sell back only to the local authority or housing association from which they originally bought the house.
          I believe that that proposal is a move forward. However, it means that the time scale between houses becoming available the second time for part ownership by low-income families will be much more extended than it would be if the new clause was accepted. If we move towards my suggestion of 62·5 per cent., those houses will become available again more quickly for another family to embark on that process. If the new clause is not accepted, the Government's proposal would mean that the pool of houses owned by a local authority or a housing association would be a far less effective means of getting low-income families into the business of home ownership and on to the home ownership ladder.
          I hope that the Government will accept the large volume of opinion both inside and outside the House in support of this new clause. I accept that its drafting could be deficient, and I am not prepared to go to the wall on the exact wording of its provisions. However, what I want to hear tonight and what I am determined to hear tonight from the Government is that they accept the principle and are prepared to introduce a professionally drafted amendment in another place to encourage the availability for part ownership of the pool of houses about which I have spoken. In any case, I assure the Government that they will hear a great deal more about this issue when the Bill reaches another place.
          11.15 pm
          Finally, I am not in the business of creating a device through this new clause whereby local authorities could use the provisions that I am proposing to escape from their
          1032
          responsibilities over the right to buy. I am perfectly content to see a ceiling in the new clause to ensure that the number of houses that can be made available for part ownership is kept under control, so that local authorities cannot totally escape their responsibilities under the right-to-buy legislation.
          I hope that, having heard the argument and having heard the large volume of support for the new clause both inside and outside the House, the Government will now be prepared to say that they will move along these lines.
          Sir Charles Morrison: I wish to take only a few moments of the House's time to speak to my amendments (a) to (h) to new clause 22 and to support wholeheartedly everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) has said. As he has already said, my amendments have been tabled in agreement with him and amount simply to improvements on the first proposals in new clause 22. Those improvements have been suggested by the Association of District Councils and by the housing associations. I hope that they and the new clause will be accepted.
          In face of the support for my right hon. Friend's new clause, his determination and the excellent way in which he moved it, I can only believe that the Government will, with great alacrity, decide to accept the principles. If the new clause were accepted, it would strike a considerable blow for the campaign to improve housing in rural areas.
          We know that the National Association of Local Councils supports the new clause, together with the Association of District Councils. The Country Landowners Association has stated:
          "It is generally acknowledged that there is an acute shortage of affordable homes for low paid workers in rural areas."
          Those of us who represent rural areas echo the words of the Country Landowners Association. However, I sometimes have to admit that I am not yet convinced that the Department of the Environment has fully taken on board the shortage of affordable homes for low-paid workers in rural areas. Tonight the Government have an opportunity not only to allay my doubts but to demonstrate clearly that they are aware of the problem and that they are prepared to take a step forward to do something about it by supporting my right hon. Friend's new clause.
          Mr. Ridley: I intervene at this stage to, I hope, reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) that the arguments that they have been putting are not only shared on this Bench, but have already been dealt with in a way that I hope to convince them they will find more satisfactory than what they have themselves proposed.
          I accept the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale that we should allow shared ownership housing in certain rural areas to be retained as low-cost housing for future generations of local people. At present, local authorities need my consent to dispose of housing, and consent is given for a disposal on shared ownership terms only if the lease entitles the shared owner to staircase to full ownership. Similarly, the Housing Corporation will pay grant on a housing association shared ownership scheme only if the lease provides for full staircasing.

          1033
          I should mention that the new clause is technically defective. It rests on a misconception. Shared owners will be long leaseholders and long leaseholders are not secure tenants; they therefore do not currently have the right to buy. A shared owner who staircases to full ownership does so under the provisions of the lease, not by exercising the statutory right to buy. Thus, the new clause is wrong.
          I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes for his speech. He tried to improve the drafting, but it is still defective. To achieve the objective of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, it is not an amendment that would be needed, but a change of policy. I do not, however, rest my case on that.
          My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale explained why some local authorities and housing associations wish to be able to grant shared ownership leases under which there is no right to staircase to full ownership. Their concern is to ensure that, in areas where there is only a limited amount of housing, property continues to be available to people who cannot afford to buy outright. I share that concern.
          I am aware of the difficulties facing young people who cannot compete with the prices paid by incomers. I have therefore already done something about it with the local needs planning circular, which should give local authorities a great opportunity to increase the supply of low-cost housing in rural areas. I also agree that we need a way to retain shared ownership housing as low-cost housing once the first beneficiary has moved on. Therefore, we decided, and announced on 7 February, that in rural areas where there could be a real problem—such as those to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred—in replacing a shared ownership property once the shared owner has moved on, having sold, we will allow a housing association to take a pre-emptive right to buy back the property that it has provided at market prices. We will give the same right where a private landowner in a rural area has originally given land on condition that it is used for low-cost housing.
          The proposal meets all the objectives of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, but it meets a further objective, too. It not only allows the property to he recycled as low-cost housing to a new shared owner, who might at that stage be ready to ascend the housing ladder, but, importantly, it allows the shared owner to become a full owner—as my right hon. Friend said he would like him to be—and it does not deny him the right to 100 per cent. of the value of his home.
          I cannot accept the thinking of my right hon. Friend that 62·5 per cent. of the value of a home is sufficient. I do not know why he should believe that those who engage in the staircasing route, whereby they receive very little, if any, subsidy at all, to home ownership should be put in the position where they can achieve only 62·5 per cent., whereas the council tenant not only receives discount, which can be up to 55 or 60 per cent. in some cases—a huge advantage—but is allowed to progress to 100 per cent. by exercising his right to buy.
          The discrimination that my right hon. Friend is suggesting against people who happen to be a little better off and undertake shared ownership as opposed to renting, followed by the right to buy from a council or a housing association, does not appear to me to be worthy of his concern for the welfare of local people of low means in the
          1034
          rural areas. I do not believe that the House would like to take a step that disadvantages people to this extent. I sincerely commend to the House the proposal that I have put forward, which offers the best of both worlds, in that the tenant or shared owner can become a 100 per cent. owner—and the house can be used a second time for local needs for low-cost ownership.
          Mr. W. Benyon rose—
          Mr. Ridley: Let me anticipate what I think my hon. Friend was going to ask.
          If the housing association has to buy back at market value, is not the original shared owner being given a windfall at the community's or generous landowner's expense? The answer is emphatically no. This is a common misconception. The only element of subsidy to the shared owner is in the rent charged, which will decrease as he buys more of the equity. If the shared owner has staircased up to 100 per cent., he will have paid the full market value to the housing association, albeit in stages. That means, for instance, that the benefit of any cheap or free land or initial grant provided by the Housing Corporation remains with the property and is available for the benefit of the next occupier as well.
          I have here a sheet of calculations showing all this in a typical case. By coincidence, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who is sitting behind me, has a number of copies. Any hon. Member who wishes to see one will find that the figures in the case I have mentioned prove my point. The subsidy is available for the next shared owner.
          My right hon. Friend suggested that there would be a quicker turnover if, at 62·5 per cent., the shared owner had to get out if he wished to progress to 100 per cent. The house would indeed be vacated more quickly if he did that; but what a way to achieve—
          Mr. Hardy: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State, but it seems that Conservative Members have been supplied with copies of this document, yet the Secretary of State has passed one only to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). Some of us would like to see the document, and believe that we are as entitled as other Members to see it.
          Mr. Ridley: I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets a copy as soon as possible.
          I reinforce the point that, if a shared owner cannot get past 62·5 per cent., he does not have the resources to go and buy elsewhere. So he will stay in the house at 62·5 per cent. and will not free it for a new occupant.
          The related question is: will the housing association be able to afford to buy back? The answer is yes. In the first place, the money paid over in stages by the shared owner will be available. If that is not enough because of the vagaries of changes in house values or inflation, provided there is value for money, the Housing Corporation will top it up. What my right hon. Friend is assured by this scheme, with the added and priceless advantage that the local person is not deprived of the chance to become a full owner and is not discriminated against in the way in which he would be by my right hon. Friend's new clause—
          Sir Peter Emery: I have been listening closely, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not have to make a speech to reply to my question. I do not

          1035
          understand how, when a house has been disposed of after staircasing to 100 per cent., it will return to being cheap housing once it is at market value. The house will no longer provide cheap housing in an agricultural area: it will remain at market value.
          Mr. Ridley: I shall have to give a few illustrative figures to answer my hon. Friend. Let us suppose the subsidy was originally £20,000, through cheap land or a grant, that the house has a market value of £100,000 and that the shared owner has staircased to full ownership. Before he gets there, he will have paid £100,000 for the house. It cost the housing association £80,000 to build the house. It received a grant of £20,000 and will receive back the £100,000 plus the cheap land. The original benefit of the cheap land or the original grant reverts to the housing association when it pre-empts and buys. The figures, which I hope my hon. Friends will study, prove that to be the case.
          The new clause is not as good a way of meeting my right hon. Friend's objective as the way that I have outlined. Our way has the advantage of helping the very people we are trying to help—local people in rural areas who find it hard to acquire a house.
          11.30 pm
          Mr. A. J. Beith: I want to deal with some of the arguments that the Secretary of State has advanced. However, I cannot do so without first commending the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) for bringing this matter before the House and for taking the trouble to make sure that many other hon. Members were aware of it. He has done rural areas a service by doing so.
          The Secretary of State said that the main counter-argument with which he had to deal was that there was a windfall gain. That is not the main counter-argument with which he has to deal, and it is certainly not an argument that I advance as an objection to the way that the Secretary of State proposes to proceed. It would be a long and fruitless occupation to try to wipe windfall gains out of the housing market. The argument is about whether there will continue to be available housing of various kinds and, in this instance, housing which people on relatively low incomes can use as a means to get on to the housing ladder.
          It is part of the Secretary of State's argument that 65 or 67 per cent. was not a sufficient objective for people to seek to attain as they went up the staircase. As the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, people do not stick at 65 or 67 per cent. Indeed, Northumberland community council has suggested that 90 per cent. is appropriate.
          All we are trying to do is safeguard the future availability of the house for this particular purpose. At 90 per cent. shared equity, a person's opportunity of buying on the open market is obviously much greater than at 67 per cent.
          Mr. Ridley: What about 100 per cent.? That is better still.
          Mr. Beith: It is precisely because we wish to get the house back into availability for the purpose of allowing—
          Mr. Ridley rose—
          Mr. Beith: If the Secretary of State will allow me to finish the sentence, I will allow him to intervene.
          It is to allow the house to come back into availability so that people in rural areas can become owners of houses.
          Mr. Ridley: If the housing association has the right to buy it back, whether at 62, 90 or 100 per cent., it can come back into use as low-cost housing. Why does the hon. Gentleman want to stop at 90 per cent., when the same result is achieved at 100 per cent.—or did he not listen to what I said?
          Mr. Beith: It must be obvious that I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State. If he will listen carefully to me, he will understand why I do not accept that argument. I do not accept it because it will mean that there will be no turnover of houses in areas where there are very few. The Secretary of State must realise, because he has been to my constituency and has seen the scale of the project that we are talking about, that in many communities there may be only two or four such houses. One of the ways in which those houses can come back into availability is if someone goes up the staircase and is able to buy a house on the open market. When that happens, that house can come back to the housing association, not at the end of the tenant's life but at a much earlier stage, and be available to someone at the bottom of the ladder. That person can then start to work his way up.
          The key to the argument is the few houses that are available. The Secretary of State's answer to that is, "It is all right because I have devised new planning and tax relief procedures which will allow more such houses to be built". That fails to address the central problem in many of the areas that we are talking about which is that additional building is either precluded or difficult. It may be difficult because we are talking about beauty spots, outstanding places and villages in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. In such areas, the cost of new building, taking into account the overwhelming demand that it should be wholly in character with the existing village, can be astronomical.
          Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Gentleman need not concern himself only with beauty spots. There are many areas of the south-east which are attractive but would not be described as beauty spots, which suffer considerably from a shortage of land. The people who live there would not want to see more building indiscriminately dotted around the countryside.
          Mr. Beith: I accept that, but I wanted to focus the Secretary of State's mind on the problem we face, for example, in some of the beauty spots of the north-east of England, whether in the Lake District, the hon. Gentleman's constituency, or in Northumberland. There is the added problem of high land costs in the south of England.
          There is the general planning argument that we will destroy the beauty and attraction of an area if we build more houses there. Hon. Members will be aware of places in the Lake District, or coastal fishing villages tucked into a cleft of rock, in which there is no more room and to which it would be impossible to add by building more houses without destroying the attractions which have led to them being designated areas of natural beauty. Because the Secretary of State has failed to address that problem,

          1037
          he fails to recognise that his solution, although it may help in some areas, will not help in all the places about which we are concerned.
          The Secretary of State took the trouble to come to my constituency to open a small housing scheme, where he discovered how high rents can he in such areas. In doing so, he exposed himself to a barrage of advice about rural housing matters. [Interruption.] I hope the right hon. Gentleman will listen to what I am saying. He seems to be preoccupied in briefing his junior Minister, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), on some other matter. I hope he will listen now, as he listened when he came to my area to people of all political persuasions who wanted to ensure that there were adequate opportunities for housing in rural areas for those on low incomes. I do not think that he listened sufficiently to that advice. He must now reconsider the reply that he gave to the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale in the light of what I have said and in view of what many hon. Members feel on this issue.
          Sir Peter Emery: I intervene again because the point I made earlier was not answered by the Secretary of State. There are many examples to prove that every time a house in an agricultural area becomes available, it is snapped up to become a second home or a place where people spend their vacations. Hence there is a real need to require, where we can, by legislation, a pool of low-cost housing to be kept for first-time buyers and their families.
          I will give an example which may show whether we or my right hon. Friend is correct. In my local authority area of east Devon the land for a house is valued at, say, £20,000. The building may cost about £30,000. Thus, the cost of the house into which a person moves is £50,000. Over the period during which that person purchases the house—10 or 12 years—the value of the house will have risen from the original cost of £50,000 to £100,000, an increase in value of 100 per cent. over that period, and that is quite a possibility.
          When the housing authority or association repurchases for £100,000, it has had to find £50,000 above the amount it has received in rents over the period. So when it comes back on to the market, it sells at the market value. Or, perhaps one wishes to take the figure of £100,000 less the original £20,000 for the land, costing £80,000. That is no longer cheap housing for first-time buyers.
          If that is the case, my right hon. Friend's argument falls to the ground, and for that reason the amendment makes more sense. Even if it is deficient, it might be better to insert it in the Bill and clarify it in another place. That would ensure that the Government accepted the principle of what we want to achieve, and later the drafting could be made perfect. I hope that course will commend itself to the Secretary of State, for those of us who support the amendment fear that the way he is proceeding will not achieve what we wish to achieve.
          Mr. Soley: This debate clearly demonstrates the growing concern amongst Tory Members about the drying up of low-cost housing in rural areas. We have been warning them for many years about the crisis in this sector, which is beginning to match the problem in the cities. The blame lies with them. What are we doing even discussing this when the Government cut funding to local authorities and housing associations so massively in the early 1980s that they brought on this crisis?
          1038
          The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has done much of my job for me, because he is right. The figures that the Secretary of State has just handed out show what he means by low-cost housing. Tory Members will be interested in this, because it affects them deeply. The first example is of 1 June 1989, and shows a resident buying a 40 per cent. share at £40,000. Two years later, in June 1991, the resident has to buy the remaining share with a new mortgage of £60,000. Who is talking about low-cost housing? Will houses at £100,000 each help to keep the village communities together? Is that how the nurses, the teachers and the postmen will get their houses? Above all, is that how the sons and daughters of those who work in rural areas will be enabled to buy? As we all know only too well, the sons and daughters of people who have been brought up in these areas are unable to rent or buy because of the Government's policies.
          The Secretary of State rested his objections to the new clause moved by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on the argument that 62 per cent. would be unfair when a council tenant would get more. That argument is an absurdity because it is based on the false assumption that this is a fair subsidy system. What does a tenant in the private sector get if he buys? He does not get anything until he begins to get mortgage income tax relief, which goes to other house owners. A tenant who tries to buy in the private sector will get none of the subsidy that goes to a housing association tenant or to a public tenant, in the council sector.
          As we have said before, the Government have introduced a right to buy based on a subsidy system that is unfair within the rented sector. They have then fallen into the deadly trap of not doing what we said they should do, which is to make sure that, in housing stress areas, there is a duty to replace the houses that are sold. Had they done that, they would not have these problems.
          The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made a powerful case. He brought forward evidence from housing associations and letters from people to support his case. I have had the same sort of letters, and I am sure that hon. Members who represent rural areas have had them. I noticed the right hon. Gentleman say that he expected the Secretary of State to move towards him and to give him what he wanted. I saw the expression on the Secretary of State's face, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will get everything he wants.
          Towards the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I got the distinct impression that his conviction about the needs of the people whom he was trying to help was being drowned out by the knocking of his knees as he thought about going into the Division Lobby. The right hon. Gentleman will not push this to a vote, but we will, because he is being bamboozled by the Secretary of State, who, as the hon. Member for Honiton pointed out, is not talking about low-cost housing or about any significant additional provision for rural areas. We know that there is a real and growing crises in the availability of low-cost housing in rural areas, which is not just hurting individuals but destroying and undermining village communities.
          11.45 pm
          The problems that emerged in inner cities were largely the consequence of housing difficulties, with some people having the ability to escape from inner cities, whereas others did not, because of the way that housing is financed

          1039
          and wealth is distributed generally. That inner-city problem is now moving into the rural areas, and it reflects the classic face of Conservatism—private affluence and public squalor. The Government are now paying the price.
          My right hon. and hon. Friends want to press the matter to a Division. If the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale joins us in the Lobby, he will show those people who wrote to him that his position is that which he claimed in his speech. If he does not join us in the Lobby, what he will get from the other place will be peanuts, and those about whom the hon. Gentleman is worried will not be helped. Above all, the local work force and their sons and daughters will not get the houses they need at prices they can afford.
          Mr. John Greenway: I do not for one moment believe that forcing the new clause to a Division will help those people looking for low-cost housing in rural areas or in inner cities. The issues are complex, and balance is required. Over the past two or three decades, and particularly over the 10 years of the present Government, demand for home ownership has been at a level never seen before—but home ownership is meaningless unless it means 100 per cent. ownership. That is what people want.
          I have great sympathy for my right hon. Friend's new clause, which I have discussed with him in detail. It is welcome if only because it has produced a packed House of Commons at midnight to debate a matter of considerable interest to the whole country. It is apparent that two separate issues are being confused. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took a worthwhile initiative in the planning oppportunities he allowed for the development of low-cost housing in rural areas, by suggesting that the provision of such housing could be a material benefit that planning authorities should take into account when considering planning applications.
          However, that measure itself creates a difficulty. My understanding is that planning is concerned with the use of land and not with its occupation. The argument for low-cost ownership as the first step on the ladder to full home ownership is just as valid in inner cities and towns as in rural areas. A framework must be established whereby local authorities, housing associations or the private sector can develop opportunities to best effect.
          Two fundamental principles must first be balanced. Anyone who purchases a property—whether at 40, 60 or 80 per cent. of its perceived market value initially—ought to have the opportunity to acquire 100 per cent. ownership in due course. In that, I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If such a home owner has to pay for that benefit, the subsidy is not lost to the community because the local authority or housing association will have the funds available to reinvest in social housing.
          Secondly, the local authority or housing association must have the right of pre-emption. I urge my right hon. Friend to give the House the assurance that it requires today, that local authorities as well as housing associations can both staircase and have a right of pre-emption within the same scheme. If that is permitted, we can provide social housing for first-time buyers, whether they be young
          1040
          couples in rural areas or 55-year-old couples looking for a retirement home in rural areas, inner cities or market towns.
          The key is that we must have a right to staircase for the purchaser and a right of pre-emption for the local authority or housing association. If my right hon. Friend will assure the House today that he will take the Bill away and find a solution to fit those two conflicting objectives, there will be no point in going through the charade of a Division. Instead, we should allow the matter to progress to the other place and bring it back to this House when we consider their Lordships amendments
          Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I shall be extremely brief. Having listened to the right hon, Gentleman, it occurred to me that £100,000 would buy a nice flat in north London, three semi-detached houses in a good area of Sheffield, or four or five houses in a reasonable suburb of St. Helens. Is that low-cost housing? Is that what the Secretary of State is saying? I looked at his figures and decided that they were those of a cowboy, not of a sensible Department.
          Low-cost housing should be a multiple of annual income. For example, if an agricultural worker earns £8,000 or £9,000 a year, low-cost housing should cost two or three times his annual income—about £30,000. The Secretary of State does not seem to live in the world of reality. It is all very nice for those who live in Sussex and Surrey, but an awful lot of people do not live in such places. Many people want to be housed and own their own houses but do not have the income to sustain the Mickey Mouse figures given by the Secretary of State in this first fly leaflet in the House tonight.
          In his new clause, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) is trying to show that people in rural areas have a right to a home and a roof over their heads. I hope that he will have the guts to press the matter to a Division and that the House will have the courage to support him.
          Mr. Robert Key: This has been a partial debate on a subject which is close to the hearts of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) was at his most understanding and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at his most logical.
          The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), however, was spine-chilling—for the 30 seconds or so before one stopped to think about what he was saying. I, for one, will not be lectured about how we in the countryside live by people who dwell in towns and pop out every now and again at weekends. The debate has shown a profound lack of understanding on the part of Opposition Members, who have done nothing but barrack us tonight, about what the countryside is all about. I would take on the chin, however, some of the criticism that my hon. Friends and I will have received in that notable and august publication, The Field, which for the past six months has been running a campaign saying that we do not understand the countryside any more. By the same token, it illustrates the appalling lack of understanding of the Opposition.
          The debate has been partial because it has only scratched the surface of the problems of rural housing. It has touched on only one point to do with rural housing—a particular aspect of the way in which housing

          1041
          associations are beginning to help. I wish to draw my right hon. and hon. Friends' attention to the remarkable change that has occurred in the past year or two.
          Planning policy guidance circulars Nos. 3 and 7, issued by the Department of the Environment, reflect a complete change of tone in the Government's approach to rural development and a change in their approach to planning matters in the countryside. We have been told by the Department—if only people would listen to it—that the days of crowding the countryside with inappropriate, unattractive, badly designed, high-density housing are over. I have taken councillors in my constituency to task because they have not even read the Department's planning circulars.
          I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his policy on rural housing, which allows land to be made available for development which would not be released unless it was to be used for social housing. That is a great step forward. We have only to read the figures relating to the housing associations and the Housing Corporation's budget to realise that my right hon. Friend understands countryside problems. There has been a change of attitude by so many developers. I represent a beautiful constituency which I often describe as being between the devil and the deep blue sea—the devil of Swindon, which is the fastest growing conurbation in Europe, and the deep blue sea of Poole, a beautiful place which is also growing rapidly. My constituency is pincered between those two towns and as a result there are enormous pressures.
          The way in which developers view the possibilities of making huge profits has changed, especially in the past six or seven months. There is plenty of evidence to support that statement. I have been approached by builders, who I have put in touch with the district council. They have produced many schemes for low-cost housing, including do-it-yourself housing and bare minimum housing, where the developer buys up the old unprofitable plots such as railway sidings and "Gas lane", for example—the House will know that I mean—and then produces first-time housing. That is a reality. It is a long time since the hon. Member for Hammersmith trotted off into the country. That must be so, or he would understand that what I am saying is the truth.
          Farmers and country landowners have shown a deep level of understanding of their responsibility to preserve the fabric of our villages. That is why the Country Landowners Association, for example, is so active in trying to persuade its members to have regard to schemes based on low-cost land which can be developed for social housing. Those are the considerations that should be borne in mind. Despite the astonishing barracking from the Opposition, I urge my right hon. Friends not to be bounced into voting against the Government on this. I urge them instead to take a long-term view and to listen my my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We must ensure, of course, that he delivers the goods. That is the right way forward.
          Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I shall not detain the House because I know that it wishes to make progress. There are two causes of the problem that is outlined in the new clause that have not yet been mentioned in the debate. The first cause is the Rent Acts and the second is planning controls. It is not true that people in rural areas, or anywhere else, all want to buy their own housing. Many
          1042
          people with low incomes would prefer to rent but there is no rented property market to speak of because we have destroyed it through the Rent Acts. The market will not be restored until we repeal that legislation.
          It appears that 85 per cent. of land in the south-east of England, the most crowded part of the country, is held out of housing use. It is held instead for farming or it comes within the green belt. In other areas the amount of land that is held out of use for housing is even greater. There is no real shortage of land but a shortage has been created artificially. Ludicrously high prices are fetched for land that is to be built upon, and that is why the housing supply in rural areas for those on low incomes has almost dried up. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to address himself to this problem.
          Mr. Christopher Hawkins rose—
          Mrs. Gorman: Is my hon. Friend on my side?
          Mr. Hawkins: I am on my hon. Friend's side of the House. The problem in my constituency, High Peak, and in many others is not a shortage of rented accommodation due to the Rent Acts or to council house sales. The problem is that there is a shortage of housing of all kinds in villages. Houses that are put up for sale are bought as second homes. [Interruption.] I do not object to people having second homes. They are bought by people from outside who want the good life. That is fair enough; why should they not be able to buy second homes? However, the planning controls prevent the construction of new homes for local people. Farm workers and the sons and daughters of people who live in villages cannot therefore acquire their own homes in their own villages.
          12 midnight
          Mrs. Gorman: I am sorry that my hon. Friend persuaded me to give way because I find that he is not on my side at all. He has, however, aired one of the fallacies. People move out of London because they cannot afford to rent or buy homes in London. They have to move into the country, and that creates the shortage. People have to become commuters, which adds to traffic congestion and all the other problems. I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with the points I have raised.
          Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, may I make it clear that the figures that I have circulated are purely illustrative. One can use any figure or fraction of a figure that one likes, but sometimes it is useful to use the decimal system, based on 100.
          Many hon. Members have referred to the planning constraints. They include the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). They were quite right to point out that the constraint on low-cost housing in the national parks and other areas is largely a planning constraint because of the beauty of those areas. Planning authorities will not grant planning permission to provide sufficient housing. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is wrong. That is not what we are talking about tonight. We are talking about a very limited stock of houses because the policy has been to stop more houses being built by means of a very restrictive planning policy.

          1043
          There is a different problem in other parts of the country. We shall not solve the problem in the Lake District, however many houses we can afford to build, because sites will not be made available for them.
          As for the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), when a resident buys a share of a house he buys a share of the market value of that house. When he pays the last 40 per cent. he pays it at the value of £100,000, the price at which the house was transferred. The housing association that receives the payments at each stage probably puts them into another investment. The improvement in value—my hon. Friend's point—is reflected in the housing association's receipts. Therefore, the problem to which he referred does not arise. If the price of a house goes well above the market price in a particular area, the Housing Corporation will be able to top it up. I do not think that my hon. Friend's arithmetic should deter the House from doing what I have suggested.
          The scheme that I have suggested is appropriate where shared ownership is a problem because of the shortage of housing in areas where planning permission cannot come to the rescue. In many rural areas, planning permission through the new low-cost housing needs guidance will come to the rescue and housing associations will be able to come to the rescue, too. We are talking about a limited part of the country where local authorities have the right of pre-emption in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and certain other designated areas. Local authorities or housing associations have the right of pre-emption where planning constraints prevent extra building.
          My suggestion has the best of three worlds—it preserves those areas from excessive building; it secures a permanent stock of low-cost housing to enable local people to begin to climb the housing ladder; and it enables people to end up 100 per cent. owners instead of 62·5 per cent. second-class citizens.
          Mr. Jopling: I have listened with great care to the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In his first speech, he sought to shoot down my argument that houses would return more quickly to the housing pool, allowing people to start once more on the first steps of part-ownership, if there were a ceiling of 62·5 per cent. rather than 100 per cent. I am sure that I heard him correctly when he said that a person who reached the stage of owning 62·5 per cent. of a house would not have enough money to buy another one to work up to 100 per cent. I profoundly disagree.
          In using figures with many noughts on the end, many hon. Members have been talking about much more valuable houses than those that I envisage in the new clause. They are stratospheric prices compared with prices in some of the villages that I know. Bearing in mind that a person who starts as a part-owner and manages to achieve 62·5 per cent. ownership will take advantage of the general increased value of housing, even with the restrictions of clause 52 arrangements and the insistence that only local people can live in the houses—which would depress prices—he will have more than enough, several tens of thousands of pounds at 62·5 per cent., to move into another house where he is free to achieve 100 per cent.
          1044
          ownership. The original house will be available to start another family from a low-income group, whom all of us wish to help.
          My right hon Friend used another invalid argument. He said that there would be an unfair advantage for council house tenants who could take part in right-to-buy schemes that offer various discounts. Many of these houses, especially those under the management of housing associations, will be available at artificially low levels because of the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made in February. I welcome that extremely good statement. This policy, however, will allow certain land to be made available, but only for local occupancy, on the periphery of villages. The limited availability of land will be reflected in house values, to the advantage of the people who have been involved in part-ownership.
          I was also struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about the effect on small villages with a shortage of houses. We cannot continue to keep building new houses. I referred earlier to a letter from John Sutcliffe, who most hon. Members will remember, of North Housing. He is involved with housing associations across the north of England. He referred in his letter to the village of Castleton on the north Yorkshire moors, which many hon. Members will know. He said:
          "You can't go on building without ruining villages like Castleton. You must therefore keep a number of houses for locals without large means either to staircase or rent. Since and so long as we can't, we are failing to meet housing need."
          That is exactly the excellent point made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, which I also tried to make earlier.
          When I moved an amendment in Committee on the Housing Bill last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I hope that he does not mind my saying this—was not terribly keen to accept it. but in the end he did. Since then there has been evidence that, in order to meet the need for better housing opportunities for those on low incomes in rural areas, my right hon. Friend has become much more of an interventionist that I ever thought we could get him to be. I certainly welcome that.
          My right hon. Friend's announcements in February were purely interventionism. His suggestion tonight that somebody who staircases from a part ownership up to 100 per cent. ownership can only sell it either to a local authority or a housing association is pure interventionism, which I welcome. I am trying to persuade him to move a little further and deal with a request which, after all, has powerful backing from the Association of District Councils and the National Federation of Housing Associations.
          A little earlier the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) accused me of having knocking knees. I sat in the Whips' seat on the Government Front Bench for far too long to have knocking knees at the prospect of going into one Lobby or another. My knees certainly are not knocking. My concern is that there are not many Opposition Members in the Chamber to support my new clause.
          There are few issues in my constituency about which I feel more strongly than the need to provide housing for low-income families in the rural areas where they were born and brought up. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) put his finger on it when he

          1045
          explained that in his constituency local people are more and more being pushed out by people buying second and holiday homes
          I did not table the new clause simply to air the problem. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cannot help us, I shall reluctantly go into the Lobby and vote against the Government. I assure them that they will hear a great deal more about this matter in another place.
          Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
          The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 171.

          Division No. 243]

          [12.14 am

          AYES

          Abbott, Ms Diane

          Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

          Aitken, Jonathan

          Grocott, Bruce

          Alton, David

          Hague, William

          Anderson, Donald

          Hardy, Peter

          Archer, Rt Hon Peter

          Henderson, Doug

          Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

          Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

          Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

          Hinchliffe, David

          Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

          Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

          Barron, Kevin

          Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

          Battle, John

          Hoyle, Doug

          Beckett, Margaret

          Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

          Beith, A. J.

          Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

          Benn, Rt Hon Tony

          Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

          Illsley, Eric

          Benyon, W.

          Janner, Greville

          Bermingham, Gerald

          Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

          Blunkett, David

          Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

          Boateng, Paul

          Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

          Bradley, Keith

          Kirkwood, Archy

          Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

          Leadbitter, Ted

          Buckley, George J.

          Leighton, Ron

          Callaghan, Jim

          Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

          Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

          Lewis, Terry

          Campbell-Savours, D. N.

          Litherland, Robert

          Cartwright, John

          Livingstone, Ken

          Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

          Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

          Clay, Bob

          Lofthouse, Geoffrey

          Clelland, David

          McAllion, John

          Clwyd, Mrs Ann

          Macdonald, Calum A.

          Cohen, Harry

          McWilliam, John

          Coleman, Donald

          Mahon, Mrs Alice

          Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

          Marek, Dr John

          Corbyn, Jeremy

          Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

          Cousins, Jim

          Meacher, Michael

          Cox, Tom

          Meale, Alan

          Crowther, Stan

          Michael, Alun

          Cryer, Bob

          Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

          Cummings, John

          Morgan, Rhodri

          Cunliffe, Lawrence

          Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

          Cunningham, Dr John

          Morrison, Sir Charles

          Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

          Murphy, Paul

          Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

          Nellist, Dave

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

          O'Brien, William

          Dixon, Don

          Patchett, Terry

          Dobson, Frank

          Pike, Peter L.

          Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

          Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

          Eastham, Ken

          Primarolo, Dawn

          Emery, Sir Peter

          Redmond, Martin

          Evans, John (St Helens N)

          Richardson, Jo

          Fatchett, Derek

          Rogers, Allan

          Fearn, Ronald

          Rooker, Jeff

          Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

          Rowlands, Ted

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

          Ruddock, Joan

          Fisher, Mark

          Sedgemore, Brian

          Flannery, Martin

          Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

          Flynn, Paul

          Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

          Foot, Rt Hon Michael

          Sheerman, Barry

          Foster, Derek

          Skinner, Dennis

          Fraser, John

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

          Garrett, John (Norwich South)

          Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

          George, Bruce

          Soley, Clive

          Gill, Christopher

          Spearing, Nigel

          Golding, Mrs Llin

          Speller, Tony

          Gordon, Mildred

          Steen, Anthony

          Gould, Bryan

          Stradling Thomas, Sir John

          1046

          Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

          Williams, Rt Hon Alan

          Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

          Winnick, David

          Temple-Morris, Peter

          Winterton, Mrs Ann

          Turner, Dennis

          Winterton, Nicholas

          Wall, Pat

          Wise, Mrs Audrey

          Wallace, James

          Walley, Joan

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

          Mr. Frank Haynes and

          Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

          Mr. Allen McKay.

          NOES

          Alexander, Richard

          Gale, Roger

          Alison, Rt Hon Michael

          Garel-Jones, Tristan

          Allason, Rupert

          Glyn, Dr Alan

          Amess, David

          Gorman, Mrs Teresa

          Arbuthnot, James

          Gorst, John

          Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

          Gow, Ian

          Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

          Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

          Ashby, David

          Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

          Atkinson, David

          Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

          Bendall, Vivian

          Grist, Ian

          Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

          Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

          Biffen, Rt Hon John

          Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

          Blackburn, Dr John G.

          Hampson, Dr Keith

          Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

          Hanley, Jeremy

          Body, Sir Richard

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

          Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

          Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

          Boscawen, Hon Robert

          Harris, David

          Bottomley, Peter

          Haselhurst, Alan

          Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

          Hawkins, Christopher

          Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

          Hayes, Jerry

          Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

          Hayward, Robert

          Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

          Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

          Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

          Hind, Kenneth

          Brandon-Bravo, Martin

          Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

          Bright, Graham

          Howard, Michael

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

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

          Budgen, Nicholas

          Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

          Burns, Simon

          Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

          Burt, Alistair

          Hunt, David (Wirral W)

          Butterfill, John

          Hunter, Andrew

          Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

          Irvine, Michael

          Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

          Irving, Charles

          Carrington, Matthew

          Jack, Michael

          Carttiss, Michael

          Janman, Tim

          Chapman, Sydney

          Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

          Chope, Christopher

          Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

          Churchill, Mr

          Key, Robert

          Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

          Kirkhope, Timothy

          Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

          Knapman, Roger

          Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

          Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

          Colvin, Michael

          Knowles, Michael

          Conway, Derek

          Knox, David

          Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

          Lang, Ian

          Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

          Lawrence, Ivan

          Couchman, James

          Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

          Cran, James

          Lightbown, David

          Currie, Mrs Edwina

          Lilley, Peter

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

          Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

          Day, Stephen

          Luce, Rt Hon Richard

          Devlin, Tim

          Macfarlane, Sir Neil

          Dorrell, Stephen

          MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

          Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

          Maclean, David

          Dover, Den

          McLoughlin, Patrick

          Dunn, Bob

          Mans, Keith

          Durant, Tony

          Marshall, John (Hendon S)

          Dykes, Hugh

          Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

          Eggar, Tim

          Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

          Fallon, Michael

          Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

          Favell, Tony

          Mellor, David

          Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

          Mills, Iain

          Fishburn, John Dudley

          Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

          Fookes, Dame Janet

          Morris, M (N'hampton S)

          Forman, Nigel

          Moynihan, Hon Colin

          Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

          Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

          Forth, Eric

          Page, Richard

          Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

          Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

          Franks, Cecil

          Riddick, Graham

          Freeman, Roger

          Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

          Fry, Peter

          Ryder, Richard

          1047

          Sainsbury, Hon Tim

          Townend, John (Bridlington)

          Shaw, David (Dover)

          Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

          Shelton, Sir William

          Trippier, David

          Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

          Twinn, Dr Ian

          Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

          Vaughan, Sir Gerard

          Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

          Waddington, Rt Hon David

          Squire, Robin

          Waller, Gary

          Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

          Ward, John

          Stevens, Lewis

          Watts, John

          Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

          Wells, Bowen

          Sumberg, David

          Wheeler, John

          Summerson, Hugo

          Widdecombe, Ann

          Taylor, Ian (Esher)

          Wilkinson, John

          Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

          Wood, Timothy

          Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

          Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

          Tellers for the Noes:

          Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

          Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory

          Thornton, Malcolm

          and

          Thurnham, Peter

          Mr. Tom Sackville.

          Question accordingly negatived.
          Mr. Soley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I say to the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) that I misjudged—
          Mr. Tom Sackville: That is not a point of order to the Chair.
          Mr. Soley: I am making a point of order to the Chair. I misjudged the right hon. Gentleman's character and what I thought—[Interruption.]
          Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order with me, and I must listen to it.
          Mr. Soley: I misjudged the character of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and I should like to withdraw my comments about the knocking of his knees because what I thought was the knocking of his knees were the muted chimes of Big Ben. The right hon. Gentleman had mettle and he carried it through and I should like those comments to go on the record.

        New Clause 34

          DOG REGISTRATION SCHEMES
          `(1) In section 37 of the Local Government Act 1988 [Power of Secretary of State to provide for Local Authority dog registration schemes] for the word "may" there shall be substituted the word "shall",

          (2) If such regulations have not been made by the first day of January 1990 the Secretary of State shall lay a report before Parliament stating the reasons why not:.—[Datne Janet Fookes.]

          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Dame Janet Fookes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take also the following: New clause 43—Dog registration—
          '.—() The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (1) of section 37 of the Local Government Act 1988—
          (1) The Secretary of State shall, by regulations to be laid before Parliament before 1st January 1990, make provision for the establishment and administration of a dog registration scheme by local authorities, or such other organisations as he may, after consulting with them, designate.'.
          Amendment No. 262, in Title, line 24, after '1976', insert
          `to amend section 37 of the Local Government Act 1988;'.
          Dame Janet Fookes: New clause 43 stands in the name of myself, many of my hon. Friends and a number of Opposition Members. In other words, it commands a quite remarkable degree of cross-party support. That feeling is echoed in the country at large. A recent public opinion poll suggested that 92 per cent. of the population questioned was in favour of some form of dog registration scheme. Such a scheme is the purpose of the new clause.
          Hon. Members may remember that the Local Government Act 1988 knocked out the dog licence, but that the other place inserted provisions for a dog registration scheme. That gave to the Secretary of State, the power to operate the scheme but did not oblige him to do so. The purpose of the new clause is to impose that obligation upon him. In other words, there would be a compulsory dog registration scheme.
          Neither the relevant section of last year's Act nor this new clause lays down details. I think that that is right because I am concerned here to argue the principles in favour of such a scheme. There are many computations and many ways of doing so, in terms of both finance and precise detail. Suffice it to say that several organisations support the principle. It is worth giving a list of them because in themselves they are an interesting reflection of the way in which a dog registration scheme has caught the public imagination. Not surprisingly, the National Farmers Union is strongly in favour of such a scheme. Its members suffer from livestock worrying from stray dogs out of control. It is not surprising either that the postmen's union, the Union of Communication Workers, is very much in favour. It will be able to tell hon. Members better than I could how many thousand bites its postmen receive in a year. I am told that it is a great many.
          Mr. Harry Greenway: I want to confirm my hon. Friend's important point about the interests of the postmen in this matter. On a large estate in my constituency, the postal services have been suspended three times in 18 months due to very severe attacks on postmen.
          12.30 am
          Dame Janet Fookes: It is also not surprising that animal welfare organisations, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the National Canine Defence League, and the Battersea dogs' home—those who have to deal with stray and difficult dogs in the streets and in the fields—are most keen on such a scheme. Also keen on the scheme are the British Veterinary Association and the Association of District Councils, which is another body that sees the difficulties, quite literally sometimes, on the ground. Dog fouling is something which upsets many members of the public, not only those who love dogs, but those who find this a nuisance and, in some cases, a tragedy where diseases are communicated, especially to children.
          It would be helpful if I explained the kind of scheme that I would like to see. However, it is important to bear in mind that there are variations, and that the House could decide at leisure what would be the most suitable, if the principle is adopted tonight. I would envisage a national computer bureau being set up, which would have the names of the owners and the dogs listed. There would be a permanent identification of the dog, which would not simply be by a tag on a collar which could be removed or not put on at all. There are several possibilities, for

          1049
          example, tattooing. Another interesting possibility is a tiny microchip implant under the dog's skin, which could be read off like a bar code at the outlet to a supermarket. It can be done quite painlessly—[Interruption.]
          Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some of us are extremely concerned to hear the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) put forward her arguments. It is obvious from the attendance in the Chamber that many hon. Members are interested. Could we have a little order so we can understand what the hon. Member says?—[Interruption.]
          Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sure that the House will grant the hon. Lady the courtesy of listening to her quietly.
          Dame Janet Fookes: I believe that there is a law still on the statute book requiring animals that are out of control to be muzzled. Perhaps we could do with a few muzzles here tonight.
          The RSPCA asked the London School of Economics to report—independent of the RSPCA—various possibilities for schemes and the costings of them. I shall not bore the House with all the details of the report, as it is quite a long document. However, it is worth while anyone with a serious interest in the matter looking at all the information contained in the report. It gives many different figures for the kind of schemes that it might be possible to set up, depending on whether one asked dog owners to foot the entire bill, or whether it was done partly by them and partly by local authorities. What is important is that there should be a dog registration bureau, which, according to this report, could be run quite simply. A famous computer firm was asked to work out the details. So the details are provided by an organisation that knows what it is talking about. That, linked with proper dog wardens introduced everywhere by district councils, would provide the means of enforcement.
          Mr. Hardy: The hon. Lady knows that I have a considerable interest in this matter. Does she accept that her view would receive even wider support if she made it clear that any fee that was to be paid as a result of the registration scheme would be centrally determined? I hope that she will reject the Government's longstanding view that responsibility should be passed on to local authorities, and that they should fix the fee. That aspect causes considerable anxiety among many people who are interested in dogs, especially dog owners who know that they would pay whatever fee was charged and that many of those who cause the problem would continue to pay nothing.
          Dame Janet Fookes: In this regard it is interesting to note that the number of dog licences rose by 60 per cent. in Northern Ireland when the fee was updated a few years ago under an order that applied only to Northern Ireland. I believe that the scheme I have in mind would have an even higher take-up, for various reasons that might bore the House at this hour.
          A colour-coded tag on a dog showing that it has an up-to-date licence enables a dog warden to see at a glance whether the dog is properly registered. Unlike unregistered television sets, unregistered dogs make themselves known. Dog wardens with the power to enforce the law can get on to the problem straight away. It is essential first, however, that the dog be properly registered and linked to its owner.
          1050
          Dog wardens and RSPCA inspectors tell me that one of their greatest problems is that of trying to prove ownership. It is all too easy for someone to disclaim ownership and to say that a dog belongs to a sister or brother-in-law and is being looked after for two weeks. In a recent court case in Stevenage the charge against a man was dismissed because he claimed that the dogs in question were not his—they belonged to his company. Present or future legislation will not have its full effect as long as that can happen.
          I am aware that my right hon. Friend has announced various measures in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I have considered them carefully. Some are useful, others less so, but they all fail on this key point: it is essential to be able to identify a dog permanently, and to link it with its owner.
          The Association of District Councils has sent in its own plans for a dog registration scheme. I believe they are on my right hon. Friend's desk now. It would be interesting to know whether he has any comments to make on them, but it is instructive that the organisation feels so strongly about the problem that it is prepared to propose its own scheme.
          If the Government do not want to take on the ordering of the scheme there is no reason why another body—perhaps voluntary, like the RSPCA, or the Association of District Councils, or even a private firm—should not run the scheme. I hope that my hon. Friends and Opposition Members will join me in the Lobby tonight if the Government cannot concede this point.
          I am concerned about stray dogs, and many people who have seen them looking miserably out of dogs' homes share that concern. For the last 15 years I have sought to persuade Governments of both complexions to take some action. The situation does not improve; it gets worse, and now we see the development of a fashion for more aggressive and larger breeds, often kept in unsuitable conditions and often not exercised sufficiently. Some of them are kept in places where there are small children, even though the breeds are not suitable to be in close contact with small children, and it is time to act.
          We know that there is the ever-present threat of the spread of rabies through Europe. I am aware, of course, that there are contingency plans, but how much easier it would be if we at least had all dogs registered and knew exactly where we were going.
          Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend is concerned about people having macho dogs with small children and I think that we all agree with her, but how does a dog registration scheme affect that?
          Dame Janet Fookes: If we had the system that I am suggesting whereby every dog was registered on a computer we could have additional information referring, perhaps, to the breed or type of dog. If we had dog wardens whose prime responsibility, in addition to rounding up strays, was the enforcement of the law, it would be easy, using a computer system, to light up where the dogs were and, if necessary, make particular checks on them. That is the key point of that system.
          Dogs that were not registered because people had riot bothered to do so could be taken in as strays and dealt with. If people did not claim them, one would have an answer. As it is, the requisite powers are not in place and it is high time they were. I hope that the House will show

          1051
          decisively that the time has come to take the plunge and go for a compulsory dog registration scheme linked to dog wardens. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not able to meet me on that, I must force the clause to a Division.
          Mr. Matthew Taylor: I should like to address the general question of dog registration, although my hon. Friends and I have tabled a specific amendment. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) deserves considerable credit for the effort that she has put into campaigning on this subject over many years. Many hon. Members are here to listen and to take part in the debate, and that is a tribute to the public and private concern that the hon. Lady and many others have shown. [Interruption.]
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are not staying for the debate please leave quietly?
          Mr. Taylor: I mentioned public concern because it is clear after attacks over a long period, and especially after the recent attacks by rottweilers, that there is enormous anxiety about the welfare of the animals and the impact on communities of attacks, disease and general pest control. There is also private concern because it is evident from the number of hon. Members who are present that the Secretary of State can be beaten on the issue of his reluctance to take action, although I think that the House will have to press the matter to a Division because he will be reluctant to accept the new clause.
          12.45 am
          Much has been said in recent weeks about attacks by dogs which have been bred and trained to guard and to attack. Nobody suggests that a dog registration scheme will answer all the problems or that no further attacks will occur, but at least there will be a guarantee that owners can be traced and identified when incidents take place. That will be a strong incentive for them to keep their dogs under proper control.
          Mr. Christopher Hawkins: As 60 per cent. of people did not pay the 37½p dog licence, how can the hon. Gentleman guarantee that dog owners will register under the proposed scheme?
          Mr. Taylor: The scheme is necessary for other reasons. For example, in addition to attacks, animals cause other nuisances, not least the danger of disease, the concern of farmers over sheep worrying by dogs and car and other accidents caused by strays. Although local authorities have powers to establish their own schemes—no doubt that will form part of the Secretary of State's case against the new clause—they are unlikely to be able to set up effective schemes, even if they could find the cash to do so.
          The Secretary of State will probably also argue that there is already a requirement for dogs in public places to wear collars and identity tags. As the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) pointed out the shortcomings of the previous dog licence system, so a Department of the Environment working party report back in 1976 said that the collar and tag requirement was more honoured in the breach than in the observance. The new clause would ensure that we had an effective scheme in place.
          1052
          A compulsory scheme would prevent owners from denying ownership. It would be self-financing through the charges that would be levied. Sweden is an example of how effective such a scheme could be. Battersea dogs' home receives about 22,000 strays a year. In Stockholm they have difficulty in filling cages for 50 strays.
          The argument used by the hon. Member for High Peak would suggest that when the fee for dog licences was increased in Northern Ireland there would be a dramatic fall even from the low levels registration that there had been before, but that did not happen. In fact, there was an increase in registration, even though the scheme was not on the same scale or basis as the one being argued for today. We are arguing for a scheme in which there is clear identification and enforcement, a scheme that is of benefit to the animals themselves as well as to the public, and one which commands the clear support of the population. If hon. Members have the guts to follow their principles and vote for such a scheme, it will also have the clear support of the House of Commons.
          I am not asking for a dramatic change of heart by hon. Members, who have already shown their support for the scheme by signing the early-day motion and by supporting the scheme already set out in legislation, which the Secretary of State has decided not to implement because the Act says "may" rather than "shall". We are asking hon. Members to support just a small change which will compel the Secretary of State to take action. I hope that the House will do so.
          Mr. Ridley: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) for the work that she does for animal welfare, and for the consistency of her campaigns for the registration scheme, about which she spoke so eloquently. Both she and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) spent the majority of their time talking about a dog registration scheme, when the House should first direct itself to the problems and what we should do about them.
          Irresponsible owners who fail properly to control their dogs cause three problems of serious concern. The first is attacks by dangerous dogs—a recent phenomenon that has got a lot of publicity. The second problem is fouling in public places, and the third is stray dogs. These are becoming more and more serious in everyday life, particularly in urban areas. Filthy pavements, packs of stray dogs, let alone isolated attacks by uncontrolled dangerous animals, are becoming a major threat to the quality of life, and in some cases to safety and health.
          We are determined to do all that is possible to deal with these problems. My hon. Friend said that the time has come to act. I agree with her, and I am happy to announce a package of measures to provide what I believe is the best solution to these important but essentially local problems. I announced in March our intention to require local authorities to tackle these problems. They are local problems and should be tackled by the local authorities. I can now give the House details.
          First, on dog fouling, as part of a package of measures to deal with the increasing problem of litter, I propose to place on local authorities a duty to clear up dog messes in public places. This will be enforced through a code of practice to which local authorities will have to adhere. Any member of the public will be entitled to seek an order in the courts if a local authority fails in its duty to do so. This duty will be backed up by the existing powers of local

          1053
          authorities to make byelaws against dog fouling or to restrict dogs from certain public places, particularly where children play.
          Secondly, on stray dogs—
          Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the right hon Gentleman give way on that point?
          Mr. Ridley: No, I will not give way.
          Both the police and local authorities have powers to take up, hold and, if necessary, destroy dogs. The police have a duty to hold a stray animal if it is brought in by a member of the public, but no one has the duty to collect up and deal with stray dogs. I propose that that duty should be placed firmly on local authorities, freeing police time for what should be their proper tasks. Local authorities will be able to undertake that duty as they wish.
          I do not propose to issue a code of guidance, and many councils will no doubt conclude that a dog warden system on the lines already operated by some 200 local authorities is the best way to fulfil their duties. I see no other way that local authorities will be able to discharge their duties. I claim in aid the Opposition, by quoting from their October 1986 conference declaration:
          "We will set up properly financed dog warden services in the interests of people's health and the welfare of domestic pets."
          In support of local authorities' general proactive responsibility, I intend giving them powers to charge owners seeking to collect stray dogs from custody and a clear duty to enforce existing requirements in respect of collars and identification tags. Local authorities already have powers, subject to various statutory restrictions, to make byelaws requiring dogs to be held on leads in various public places—on roads, in parks and gardens and on beaches. In other countries such leash laws are used more widely than here. We propose examining the present range of order and byelaw-making powers.
          As to dealing with dangerous dogs, we fully share the alarm caused by recent horrific stories concerning rottweilers and the attacks that they made. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has a responsibility for the control of dangerous dogs and for dog welfare, announced this afternoon a package of measures to tighten up the present controls on dangerous dogs in the Dogs Act 1871.
          He proposes, first, to allow the courts to appoint someone other than the owner to destroy a dangerous animal; secondly, to increase to £400 the maximum fine for failure to comply with an order to control or to destroy a dog; thirdly, to give the courts the power to ban from owning or keeping a dog anyone who is the subject of a previous order made under the Act.
          Mr. Andrew Bowden: I submit that it is neither practicable nor possible to ban an individual from owning a dog. A husband, for example, who is banned from keeping a dog because of cruelty or for any other reason can arrange for his wife or another member of the family to obtain a dog for him. Would it not be possible to ban a dog being kept at a particular residence or under a particular tenancy? When the tenancy changes or when the house or flat is sold, the ban would be cancelled. The problem will never be dealt with if only one member of a family is banned.
          Mr. Ridley: I note my hon. Friend's point and shall discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to see whether he believes that such a scheme would be better.
          I make the point that nowhere do those effective and straightforward solutions require for their implementation a dog registration scheme. The fact that an owner has paid a registration fee would not have any bearing on the problem of dog fouling. Nor would registration prevent people from allowing their dogs to stray.
          In a recent series of advertisements, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals declared:
          "There is overwhelming evidence that dog registration would help solve the plight of stray dogs in Britain…owners could be identified, traced and held responsible for their dogs' actions."
          There is already a statutory requirement on owners to put collars and identification tags on their dogs. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Drake that identification is essential, and I shall be happy to review the powers currently available to ensure that any modern form of identification can be attached to the dog rather than just to its collar—but that would not involve registration. People can be fined for breaching—
          Mr. Rogers rose—
          Mr. Ridley: I will not give way because I am in the middle of a sentence.
          People who breach the law on dogs wearing collars are liable to a fine of—[Interruption.]
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) must restrain himself. The Secretary of State has said that he will not give way at the moment.
          Mr. Ridley: We shall give local authorities a clear duty to enforce the collar or identification requirement. That is all the powers they need in to order to deal with strays.
          The alleged overwhelming evidence rests on the dog registration scheme introduced in Northern Ireland in 1984. The report recently produced on the problem of straying, to which reference has been made, made the following comments on the success of the scheme:
          "depending on which figure is accepted for 1984 (of dogs destroyed after straying) the total number of dogs destroyed since the new order was introduced has increased or decreased…Longer term evidence will be needed before the new system can be judged fairly."
          That is hardly overwhelming evidence.
          In none of the recent regrettable rottweiler attacks was there any evidence that identification of the owner was a problem. These owners need the law, albeit reinforced as I have said, to be enforced against them. They do not need registration. The sort of people who would allow their rottweilers to attack pensioners and children in the street will not think twice about buying a dog because of a requirement to register. Therefore, there is no logic in the campaign for a dog registration scheme.
          Mr. Marlow: This proposal will obviously be a burden on local government: so be it, that is fine and there is no complaint about that. However, to help local government to discharge that burden, my right hon. Friend suggests that there should be a system of byelaws. At the moment, it is difficult and takes a long time to pass a byelaw. Could my right hon. Friend explain how the byelaws can be made readily available and can be put through the House in a relatively short time?
          1 am
          Mr. Ridley: I quite agree with my hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are reviewing the procedure and the conditions under which byelaws are made to ensure that every local authority can easily apply for the byelaws that it will need. The measures will have to be enacted and will be brought in at the earliest opportunity. There will be time to get the law absolutely right when we come to do that.
          Mr. Rogers: Early in his exposition, the Secretary of State mentioned that he was going to charge local authorities with the responsibility to ensure that dogs did not foul pavements, and that that would involve the courts. How will that court process operate in order to prevent dogs from excreting on pavements? What will the process entail for local authorities?
          Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows that no process of law, administration or registration will prevent dogs from fouling pavements. For the sake of health, it is essential to ensure that someone is responsible for cleaning up the mess. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have wanted that.
          There is no logic in the campaign for registration, the real reason for which was that it was a way to raise money. This policy will cost a certain amount of money. Estimates commissioned by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals from the London School of Economics suggest that the total annual cost of employing a dog warden, including the cost of holding and dealing with strays, is about £30,000 a year. The city of Bradford, which is widely believed to operate an effective dog warden scheme, and on which the LSE based its estimate, employs five wardens. Therefore, even in a city the size of Bradford, the annual cost will be about £150,000. That is the equivalent of about 40p on the community charge for the city, and that is not counting any revenue support grant which might go towards it.
          Is it justifiable to set up a new scheme, with its attendant bureaucracy and the additional costs involved, to collect hypothecated tax from dog owners in order to finance such a small sum, or to chase up the many dog owners who would seek to avoid the tax?
          I invite the House to think about the registration scheme. Opposition Members have complained bitterly about the cost and complexity of setting up the community charge registration scheme, and the cost and complexity of a dog registration scheme would be far worse. Every working dog and every old lady's pet dog would have to be registered. Different interest groups would press for exemptions for all sorts of category of owner.
          The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals suggests that the dog registration fee should be £65. That is as much as twice what many people will have to pay as a community charge if they are on full rebate. We cannot expect people to pay twice as much for the registration of their dog as they pay for local authority services. There would have to be a complicated system of rebates for old-age pensioners, for example, the blind, those who own sheepdogs and those who are on income support. The register would have to be kept up to date, and dogs die at a fairly early age and are transferred from one owner to another. New dogs are required at regular
          1056
          intervals. All these factors would have to be included in the production of a register. It would be the hardest register of all to collect information for and to set up.
          The Kennel Club, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Drake did not refer as an organisation concerned with dogs and one which supported her, does not support a dog registration scheme. I shall quote from its letter to me, which I received today. It reads:
          "Our data base contains"—
          it has its own registration scheme—
          "2·3 million dogs and is a voluntary scheme but despite this the change of address of owners and their names does occur with great frequency (10 per cent. a year) and we are seldom notified. The numerous other arguments against a national registration scheme are well known and have been clearly stated".
          Mr. Frank Cook: I ask the Secretary of State to adjust his perspective for about 10 seconds. Does he realise that the registration is of the owner, not of the dog? Responsibility for the behaviour of the dog, including any misdemeanours, and its welfare and care is placed on the owner, and the owner could be traced. Will the Secretary of State consider registration from that angle?
          Mr. Ridley: Of course we could not make a dog register itself. We would have to register the owner. The hon. Gentleman states the obvious. The new clause is all about a dog registration scheme. Surely the hon. Gentleman understands that that means registering owners and not dogs.
          Mr. Roger Gale: I am sure that my right hon. Friend did not wish deliberately to mislead the House when he referred to the fee that the RSPCA suggests, but he most certainly has done so. He quoted a flat, one-off fee for life. The annual alternative fee would not be anything like £65. Instead, it would be £15.
          Mr. Ridley: I thank my hon. Friend for that elucidation. I do not think that a fee of £15 would be all that popular. Nor do I think that it would be easy to collect that fee instead of £65. I believe that there would be massive problems with evasion if there were fees of that sort.
          On the other hand, the community charge mechanism is effective and simple. It would provide a reliable source of income from the local community to deal with a community problem. A dog registration scheme would probably be the worst tax to raise money that it was possible to invent.
          We shall of course be consulting local authorities and other interested bodies about the details of what I propose. I believe that the package I have outlined will give local authorities the tools with which to do the necessary job. What the Government propose will tackle the real problems without inventing an expensive and complex bureaucracy and a new tax that many people would find it hard to pay or would wish to evade. I hope that my hon. Friend feels that what we have suggested will meet the real concern of people that the situation should improve and that a dog registration scheme is therefore not necessary.
          Dr. John Cunningham: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) on her speech, in which she dealt with a series of issues of considerable public significance. The Secretary of State said that we should concentrate on the problems and then

          1057
          try to find effective solutions, and I agree with him. I told my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) that I did not care too much whether he was in the Chamber tonight, so long as he made sure that his dog Offa was here and on my side when I spoke.
          The recent series of incidents in which people have been savagely mauled by rottweilers has shocked the people of Britain. They want action to be taken now so that safety in public places is improved, with greater control being exercised over dog owners and their animals. In previous years we have endured other such incidents involving other breeds of dog. It just happens that rottweilers are fashionable at the moment. In the past it has been alsatians or doberman pinschers. It is not a new problem.
          Unless better protection is provided for the public, and unless better enforcement systems in respect of owners can be used, some of these dogs will, literally, be lethal. A warden scheme and an owner registration scheme represent the best way in which to begin to resolve the problem of dog attacks and the problem of public health and hygiene which is associated with dogs fouling public open spaces and footpaths.
          I share the Secretary of State's view that these problems will not be immediately resolved by whatever scheme is finally put in place. It would be unrealistic to suppose otherwise. However, I do not accept that to increase the level of fines and to lay further duties on local authorities without making any specific commitment to provide additional central Government finance to support the administration of the scheme would be right. Apart from public safety and public health and hygiene, the nuisance caused by dogs is often considerable. The number of accidents involving dogs and motor vehicles is also considerable. Taken together, all these things cost a great deal of public money.
          Mr. Gary Waller: The hon. Gentleman began his speech by referring, quite properly, to the problems caused by dangerous dogs, but does he agree that a dog registration scheme would not deal with the problems caused by dangerous dogs? The RSPCA accepts that a dog registration scheme which tried to identify particular breeds of dogs would be unworkable, particularly if we take into account the fact that many problems are caused not by rottweilers but by other dogs which would also have to be registered.
          Dr. Cunningham: I do not agree with any of that. Of course, all owners would be required to register their dogs.
          There is a wide range of issues and problems. Although the current anxiety is principally about vicious or violent dogs, there is widespread concern about health, hygiene and accidents. We need a system which can begin to deal with all those issues, not just the recent incidents involving a particular breed. Those incidents which have gained media attention are just a tiny fraction of the incidents involving dogs almost every day.
          1.15 am
          Perhaps I should declare an interest as a dog owner and dog lover. One of the first points that we should recognise is that not everyone comes into that category. People are often unsure or afraid of dogs, even dogs which are very friendly, like the dog in my family. However we consider these problems, we need to bring more pressure to bear
          1058
          and exercise more controls over dog owners, and registering them is the beginning of the way to resolve those problems.
          According to the latest estimate, there were more than 7 million dogs in the United Kingdom in 1988, 500,000 more than in the previous year. The increase is forecast to continue. The problems will continue to grow. The Secretary of State has said nothing to convince the public that the Government's proposals will resolve the nature or scale of the problems. Of course, we need a system which helps local authorities properly to finance dog warden schemes. I do not believe that that burden should be placed solely on poll tax payers. Surely dog owners have a duty to contribute to the cost of the resolution of these problems. A realistic registration fee is a way of achieving that.
          Last year, during the passage of another Local Government Bill, the Government abolished the licence fee, which was a paltry 37p. That fee was out of date and the system was neglected and discredited. It was right that it should go, but it was wrong that it was not replaced by a more effective scheme which addressed the problems. The Government have created a vacuum which they clearly regret, as evidenced by the announcements of the Secretary of State. The House of Lords quite rightly wrote into that Bill provisions for a dog registration scheme. The Secretary of State immediately made clear his intention not to activate those proposals. He should think again. Perhaps the other place will again force him to reconsider, aided by increasing public opinion in support of what the other place and we say.
          In 1978, the then Labour Government commissioned a working party on these problems. It reported in 1978, hut was overtaken by the 1979 general election. The incoming Conservative Government set the report aside and took no action. We were convinced then and we remain convinced that a registration scheme should be set up, to be administered at local level. I share the view of the Secretary of State that, whatever the system, these problems will be adequately and effectively dealt with only at local level. We cannot resolve them with Ministers and Whitehall having all the powers and local authorities having none.
          Mr. Anthony Steen: I, too, am a dog owner and a dog lover. I have been trying to understand the arguments of the hon Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about registration and to relate them to strays. When I was in the north-west, my office was next to the RSPCA home and I saw the horror of all the stray dogs being brought in and put down. It was a terrible sight. How will registration prevent that? How would the hon. Gentleman ensure that owners of dogs which have litters were on some sort of register? The House would be interested to hear how he envisages a system of registration working.
          Dr. Cunningham: The best way to tackle a problem is to make a start. Unless we beging to do something, the position will worsen—
          Mr. Graham Riddick: Answer the question.
          Dr. Cunningham: Shut up.
          Mr. Riddick: Answer.
          Dr. Cunningham: I am answering the question, you fathead.
          Mr. Marlow: On this side of the House we do not think that you are a fathead, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am in a very tolerant mood tonight.
          Dr. Cunningham: No discourtesy to you was intended, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
          As the hon. Member for Drake said, we need a system which connects dog owners and animals. Nothing that the Secretary of State has said tonight will bring about that simple connection. Unless there is such a link in identification, which registration would begin to put in place, nothing will begin to resolve the problem of strays. It is no good suggesting that people should pay larger fines to get their dogs out of dog pounds. Only one in 10 stray dogs are collected from the pounds by their owners. If they know that there will be an ever larger financial penalty when they collect their dogs, the percentage being collected will fall, not rise. The right hon. Gentleman's proposals simply do not hang together.
          I want to say something about the Secretary of State's dismissal of the proposals in the new clause on grounds of cost and bureaucracy. The RSPCA estimates that the current cost to the public of such a variety of problems is £60 million to £70 million per year and rising. We are already paying a heavy price for our failure to deal with those problems. They can only get worse under the right hon. Gentleman's proposals and the costs will increase.
          The right hon. Gentleman said that under the new clause all dogs would have to be registered and he made great play about guide dogs for the blind. Of all the categories that he could have chosen, he could not have been more wrong than he was about guide dogs. Dogs like Offa, who belongs to my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside do not savage people in public parks and they do not foul public places. In any case, they could be exempt because guide dogs are already subject to a registration scheme. The right hon. Gentleman chose a great many nit-picking arguments and rolled them into an argument about cost and bureaucracy to support his claim that the scheme would not work.
          The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the cost of the scheme for pensioners. They, too, could be exempt —[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman raised the point. Pensioners' house dogs are usually tiny and do not cause the majority of the problems. Exempt or not, with modern technology and management systems it would be quite a simple matter to have a registration scheme which could be effectively administered.
          Mr. Rogers: Will my hon. Friend give way?
          Dr. Cunningham: I have nearly finished my speech.
          The same Secretary of State who opposes dog registration says that he wants to register every person over 18 to pay the poll tax. He says that that will be efficient and will not cost much, but he will not agree to register 7 million animal owners. To use The same Secretary of State who opposes dog registration says that he wants to register every person over 18 to pay the poll tax. He says that that will be efficient and will not cost much, but he will not agree to register 7 million animal owners. To use one of his own favourite phrases, he is talking absolute nonsense and he knows it.
          Mr. John Marshall: Interestingly, those who advocate registration are unwilling to talk about its cost. To put forward a scheme that will involve people making a one-off payment of £65 or an annual payment of £15 is unfair to pensioners, one-parent families and other groups in social need.
          Mr. Tim Devlin: Does my hon. Friend have any conception of veterinary fees? Someone who cannot afford to pay £50 or £60 a year should not keep a dog, because every time that their dog is even slightly injured they will pay over £100 for the most elementary treatment. I should welcome a scheme that makes owners pay a proper fee to keep dogs.
          Mr. Marshall: As a dog owner, I am well aware of the cost of veterinary fees. There is no reason for placing an additional burden on dog owners, which is what the proponents of the scheme are willing to do.
          I do not believe that people would register their dogs. We know that people did not pay the former dog licence. It is perverse logic to suggest that increasing the cost of registration will make people register their dogs. If they did not pay the dog licence, they will not be willing to register.
          To say that under a dog registration scheme someone will be able to find out whose dog bit him and who its owner was is absurd in the extreme. If a dog bites someone, will it then stop so that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) or anyone else can look at its tag to find out who its owner is? Of course it will run away as quickly as possible. It is absurd to suggest that a dog registration scheme will stop dogs biting people, postmen or even Labour party canvassers, if there are any left, or stop dogs fouling the pavement.
          I have been shocked by the RSPCA's campaign. Its press advertisement was quite irresponsible because the sight of those dogs was quite unrelated to the abolition of the dog licence. It and every hon. Member knows that that advertisement was quite irresponsible.
          If we are to get rid of the problem of strays we need a system of spaying and neutering. In 1939, the RSPCA signed an agreement with the British Veterinary Association that it would not neuter cats or dogs belonging to the general public, except in special circumstances. The RSPCA is a wealthy organisation. I read an article this evening that stated that it has accumulated funds of £40 million. If it wants to deal with the problem of stray dogs it should use that money to set up spaying and neutering centres.
          Mr. Peter L. Pike: I shall be brief, but I should like strongly to support the new clause. Although I do not believe that it will solve all the problems, it is a move in the right direction. It will deal vigorously with the problems of dogs, which are caused by irresponsible owners. We have to stress that it is not the dogs themselves that cause the problem, but the actions of irresponsible owners, which allow them to become strays or foul the footpath and cause the majority of problems at present.
          1.30 am
          The proposals outlined by the Secretary of State were some of the greatest nonsense that I have ever heard him utter. That is saying something with that Secretary of State, because he speaks a lot of nonsense at times. He throws another burden on local authorities and assumes that local authorities can solve this problem. He has shifted it from the owners and the Government and has said to local government, "This is your problem. You solve it." Yet he does not give local authorities the resources or the ability to solve the problem. Without a dog registration scheme, his proposal would be totally inoperable and totally ineffective.

          1061
          I remind the House of what the Secretary of State said last year when we dealt with the Lords amendment. He made it very clear then that, although he was not prepared to disapprove of the Lords amendment, he had no intention of operating it. The only reason that he did not want to disapprove of it at that stage—because it is nonsense to allow a proposal to stand in a Bill if one has no intention of operating it—and the only reason that he did not want to put the Lords amendment to the vote was that he felt that he was in danger of losing. The only reason why he has come forward with his nonsensical proposal is to try to dissuade some of his hon. Friends from standing firmly by the new clause and voting against the Government tonight. He is trying to lead them in a false direction.
          I want to echo a point made in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). I could say much on the issue of dogs, having had a major problem with dogs being banned from parks in Burnley in the 1970s. My hon. Friend made the point clearly that he hoped that any dog registration scheme would have a nationally fixed fee. We had a saga of problems with banning dogs from certain parks and I could talk for hours on that if it was not so late. The case is strengthened for having a nationally fixed fee.
          When the Secretary of State referred to byelaws, he had to recognise the difficulty of bringing in byelaws and he should have done more about it than he has done tonight. When the byelaws were introduced in Burnley under the County Borough Act 1881, they had to be incorporated in the County of Lancashire Act 1984. That Act was blocked in this House and in the other place for about two years solely because of the Burnley dog ban in parks.
          If the Secretary of State really believes that his solution can work, he must think again. I ask Conservative Members not to be led astray by what the Secretary of State has said tonight. He has offered a proposal that will not solve the problem. If we want to reduce the incidence of dogs fouling our footpaths, straying and attacking children, old people and postmen, we must support the new clause.
          Mr. Gale: I will support my hon. Friend in the Lobby tonight—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Which one?"] I will support my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) and I hope that many of the more than 100 of my hon. Friends who signed the early-day motion will also support the new clause.
          I want first to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West, (Mrs. Bottomley), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, for her courtesy on the two occasions when we have met her to discuss the problem and for the attention she has paid to both my hon. Friend the Member for Drake and myself as officers of the all-party group for animal welfare when we have raised the matter with her. It is a sadness to me that after the last occasion on which my hon. Friend and I took a delegation from the RSPCA to meet the Minister, it found it necessary to put out a press release saying that she had been intransigent. She was not. It was neither true nor just. [HON. MEMBERS: "When does the press tell the truth?"] I do not believe that this is a party political issue in any way. There can be no doubt among hon. Members of any party, or on the Front Bench, that there is a problem with stray dogs; with the fact that 1,000 dogs every day of the year—350,000 dogs per year—are being
          1062
          destroyed; with the damage that is caused by stray animals and with injuries. The difference between us is a genuine one; it is a difference over how the problem should be solved.
          I welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in a written answer earlier today, although I am slightly concerned by the caveat that these measures will be introduced subject to legislative opportunity. As many hon. Members have said, each of those measures is dependent upon the identification of the dog and the owner of the dog in question. Every single measure that my right hon. Friend has announced today, such as taking cases involving dangerous dogs to court, giving courts the power to order the destruction of a dog where the owner is not prepared to do so and ordering the implementation of a fine, is dependent upon an identification system. In a sedentary intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) asked how identification would help. The RSPCA is right to say that although a registration and identification system is not the solution to the problem in itself it is the cornerstone of a series of solutions to what is becoming a national problem.
          Other hon. Members have asked how we can make people register and have said, "People did not pay the 7s 6d licence fee." It is true that they did not and that it fell into disrepute—
          Mr. John Marshall: People do not always pay the road fund tax.
          Mr. Gale: Precisely, as my hon. Friend says, people do not always pay the road fund tax, but there is no suggestion that the Government will abolish the vehicle licensing scheme. There is no suggestion, for the time being at least, that the televison registration scheme or the gun licence scheme will be abolished. The fact that every hen. Member knows that not every dog owner will register immediately is no reason for sitting back and doing nothing.
          Mr. Devlin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
          Mr. Gale: No, I should prefer not to because other hon. Members wish to speak and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to make his own speech in a moment.
          My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has suggested a further set of measures this evening that could be provided through the funding raised as a result of a registration scheme, but he has chosen instead to place that funding burden on the ratepayer.
          I believe that a national dog warden scheme is necessary and desirable and that it is necessary locally to ensure that dog owners do not allow their animals to foul public footpaths and playing greens. However, I also believe as a Conservative—although I did say that this was not a party political matter—that the user should pay. I do not see why the ordinary ratepayer, the non-dog owner, should be required to pay for my dogs, the dogs of any of my hon. Friends or of any old-age pensioners. The figures have been given. The RSPCA has stated that the cost of a national registration scheme would be £65 as a flat fee upon the initial registration of a puppy or approximately £15 per year. It has been said that that would place an unfair burden on old-age pensioners but I remind the House that it costs about £200 per year for each and every year of a dog's life to keep a dog fed and properly

          1063
          maintained in terms of veterinary fees. Frankly, sad though it may be, the person who cannot afford the £15 most certainly could not afford the £200—or more for a larger dog—that it costs to keep an animal per year.
          I believe that a national register is practical and possible and that it will help as one ingredient in the solution to the problem. Indeed, I believe that it is essential. However, it need not be unnecessarily bureaucratic. I believe that it needs to be run by the state. It has been said that the Kennel Club already has a regulation scheme. The British Veterinary Association, which backs this proposal, has indicated a willingness to become involved, and so, too, has the RSPCA. For those who would like to see the private sector run the scheme, the Wood Green animal shelter has said that it has the computer capacity and the ability to run such a scheme.
          I hope that those more than 100 of my hon. Friends who signed the early-day motion which led to my hon. Friend's new clause will support us in the Lobby tonight.
          Mr. McAllion: I do not wish to detain the House at this hour, but, as it was my constituent, an 11-year old girl, Kellie Lynch, who was killed in the attack by a rottweiler dog just two short months ago, I have taken a special interest in the subject. I did not want this debate to pass without making a contribution.
          Like the Secretary of State for the Environment, I wish to concentrate on the problems presented to the public by certain breeds of dogs. One problem of which I have been very much aware, but which has not been mentioned so far, is that we do not know the current size of the dog population in this country. In this morning's The Daily Telegraph, for example, it was estimated that the population of rottweilers has increased a hundred fold over the past decade—from 1,800 in 1979 to 180,000 currently. In a recent letter to me, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department estimated that the rottweiler dog population is 90,000, and the researchers for a BBC programme in which I participated recently estimated it at 50,000.
          Estimates varying from 50,000 to 180,000 must show that we do not know the size of the rottweiler population. Until we know that, we cannot begin to understand the seriousness of the threats of certain dogs to human welfare and safety. It is important that we take the first step towards coming to grips with the problem by instituting a national registration scheme, which would at least show the size of the problem.
          The Secretary of State admitted that one problem that we have to confront is attacks by dangerous dogs. He appeared to suggest that this was the problem of the owners rather than the dogs. I dispute that argument, because the owner of the dog which killed my constituent was a very respected breeder, who, up to that time, had had a good record for looking after his dogs. I do not believe that the House can get away with laying all the blame at the door of owners.
          Certain breeds of dog in this country are sufficiently dangerous in themselves to justify extra control being brought in by the House to ensure that the public are safe from those dogs.
          1064
          One of our first tasks must be to institute a national registration scheme, and to back that up with an effective dog warden scheme in every part of the country to ensure that those dogs can be kept under proper control.
          The law at present is deficient because it does not recognise that there are dogs that are inherently dangerous. As the law stands, an attack must take place before any court will define a dog as dangerous. By the time a dog has been so defined, it is too late, the harm and the pain has already been caused to the people who have been attacked. If we allow the law to remain as it is, we will be responsible for any future attacks, so the House must do something about it.
          The Secretary of State announced a whole package of measures, which I believe are too little and already too late for the seriousness of the situation. None of those so-called proper laws on dogs would have saved my young constituent's life when she was attacked by that rottweiler, or prevented a rottweiler dog from dragging a young boy off his bike in a park and severely savaging him. [Interruption.] Registration would certainly help; it does not exist now; the House should adopt it to ensure better control of dogs.
          The law will deal severely with a dog only after an attack takes place, and less severely with the owner. That is no compensation for the victims of these attacks. We have a responsibility to try to do something to help them.
          1.45 am
          No one in the House can justify the present unrestricted market in which anyone who wants to can acquire any sort of dog. Anyone can own a rottweiler, which can stand 3 ft high and weigh 15 stones. Anyone can own a pit bull terrier. Only this week on breakfast television an American dog warden reported that pit bull terriers have killed 16 people in the United States in the past two and a half years. Anyone in this country can own an animal that I saw advertised in the Exchange & Mart in Scotland a few weeks ago. It was described as a hybrid, 75 per cent. wolf. All one needs to own one of them is money. It does not matter where it is kept, or whether it is allowed to roam free. It does not matter if it is encouraged to be fierce and to attack other people. Dogs are being sold and described as attack dogs and war dogs, and the law will not act until one of them inflicts pain and suffering on someone. That is intolerable.
          In an Adjournment debate tomorrow night, I shall make several suggestions about what can be done to control dangerous dogs, but nothing can be done to control them until we have a national registration scheme and know the numbers of dogs and who owns them. That is the essential first step, and the House must not walk away from its responsibilities.
          Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) spoke on the Jimmy Young show this morning. Throughout the interview her host kept saying how reasonable the dog registration scheme seemed and that he could not see why anyone should object to it. My hon. Friend said in her speech tonight that 92 per cent. of the public would support some form of dog registration scheme. My hon. Friend succeeded in fooling Jimmy Young, and the public have been grossly misled by a campaign by the RSPCA.
          On the show, my hon. Friend did not have time to detail exactly what the scheme involves. I want to quote a letter

          1065
          sent to supporters of the RSPCA, of whom I am one. I am also a local vice-president, and a campaigner for animal rights. The RSPCA wrote to supporters as follows:
          "Please support our campaign by writing to your MP today. Simply say that you are in favour of dog registration".
          The people who are in favour of this scheme, while claiming that it will cure rape, famine, pestilence, war, acne, dangerous dogs and everything else, have not told the public that it involves—according to the RSPCA and my hon. Friends the Members for Drake and for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale)—the permanent branding of dogs. The RSPCA has said:
          "we need a law that ensures every dog is marked with a unique and permanently applied number".
          I do not want that for my dogs, and I should very much like to see the RSPCA conduct a poll among its dog-owning members to discover what proportion of them, when correctly told what the scheme involved, would vote for this permanent branding—
          Dame Janet Fookes: First, it is not only the RSPCA which wants a dog registration scheme. Why should the Association of District Councils take the trouble to present a scheme to my right hon. Friend?
          Secondly, why are some voluntary schemes using implants? A good many dog owners want their dogs registered so that, if they are lost or stolen, they can get them back easily.
          Mr. Hawkins: That is fine if it is voluntary. I am a great believer in freedom of choice. However, we are suggesting not a voluntary scheme but a compulsory one. The Association of District Councils supports such a scheme because it is a method of taxing dog owners to pay for a dog warden service. I am totally in favour of such a service and I understand that it must be paid for. However, it is quite iniquitous to suggest, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North suggested, that it should be paid for by a tax on dog owners whose dogs commit no offence, behave perfectly normally and are properly looked after and controlled.
          It is as absurd to say that dog owners should pay the tax for a dog warden service from which we shall all benefit as it would be to say that only child-bearing parents should pay the tax that is used to finance education. For those reasons I shall oppose the introduction of such a scheme. As I say, I am in favour of dog wardens, but they should be paid for by general taxation, because we will all benefit, or by local taxation.
          A dog registration scheme has nothing whatever to do with the problem of dangerous dogs. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, most people seem to ignore the fact that in every recent case of rottweilers savaging or damaging people we knew the names of the owners. There was no problem in finding out who they were. The problems arose because of the viciousness of the dogs. That will not solved by an RSPCA scheme for registering dogs, however much such a scheme is supported, and for those reasons I shall oppose it.
          Mr. Bob Cryer: We are not talking about a single scheme but about requiring the Secretary of State for the Environment to produce regulations. He already has powers to do that but he has made it clear that he will not use them. There are 200 dog warden services and he can consult the local authority associations, one of which has already submitted a dog registration scheme to him. We are not resting our case simply on one scheme. We
          1066
          are saying to the Secretary of State that he is required to produce a scheme and can take into account the objections and benefits put forward in the debate.
          Parliament has already required the Secretary of State to produce a scheme, but instead of saying that he "shall" produce one, it said he "may" produce one. This modest new clause does not seek an absolute provision because the second part of it suggests that if the right hon. Gentleman fails to produce a scheme he must produce a statement on 1 January next year and place it before the House so that the House can take a further decision. That is a reasonable request by Parliament.
          At a recent meeting of the RSPCA and several other animal organisations, people who face the day-to-day problems posed by stray dogs and problems about the ownership of difficult and savage dogs made it clear that in their day-to-day work they would welcome a dog registration scheme. That day-to-day work is not carried out in the sort of academic fashion in which we work in the House. They said that such a scheme would help them to trace the owners and marry up the stray and difficult dogs with their owners. They said that it would provide some sort of guidance and help for people who often buy dogs and are completely unaware that the soft, cuddly puppies that they buy will grow into dogs that are in some cases completely out of control, even in the families that have helped to bring them up.
          I shall give an example of how registration is not only desirable but necessary. One of my constituents, a young girl, was walking through a fair when a dog, apparently under the ownership of a person, set upon her. She suffered severe injuries and complained to the police. The police did nothing. She complained to me, and I took the matter up with the police. Under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, a person can be prosecuted for having a dangerous dog. In that case, the person in control of the dog at the time simply passed the dog on to its previous owner. The dog was then no longer in the first person's ownership, and the police could not prosecute. They wrote to me saying:
          "The contents…of the letter…are self-explanatory and you will see that unfortunately nothing further can be done. The new owner of the dog, who was also the previous owner, was not present when the attack occurred, and on hearing of the trouble retrieved the dog from Ali. There is no evidence to show that he does not keep the dog under proper control. Nor is there any suggestion that he is unfit to keep the dog. In the circumstances, it was considered inapproprite to take him to court when the owner and person responsible for the dog at the time of the attack was…another person. I endorse the views of the Crown Prosecutor that it is unfortunate that no effective proceedings can be instituted against…this person…for the appalling injury caused by his dog."
          With a dog registration scheme, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for such a person to say, "I am terribly sorry. Bad injuries have been caused. I pass the dog to somebody else and I am free from the danger of prosecution." That letter shows that that happens.
          A dog registration scheme at one fell swoop would ensure that a long-standing piece of legislation, which has not been amended, would be put into operation. A young girl who has been scarred for life and who has needed plastic surgery would have the satisfaction of knowing that the same fate would not befall other people in the same circumstances.
          As has been pointed out, registration would enable strays to be matched to their owners. That is important, for one of the most chilling comments of an RSPCA inspector at last week's meeting was that as circumstances

          1067
          such as adverse publicity caused the prices of certain breeds to drop—rottweilers being a good example—more strays were in evidence as people simply tipped their dogs on to the roads. Are we to accept the present situation, with American pit bull terriers being at large, wandering about streets on housing estates, and we cannot do anything about it because we cannot trace their owners? It is not true to say that in all accidents the owners are known. The economics of the situation should appeal to the Government. As prices drop, dogs and puppies are turned out on to the streets, and some of them are potentially highly dangerous breeds.
          If the Secretary of State does not like the idea of local authorities raising the money, he can raise it centrally. We are here giving the right hon. Gentleman discretion—not something we would do lightly. On this occasion we are prepared to encourage him in the task. Wardens can educate, inform and help people understand their animals, so that the accidents which have received much publicity recently are not repeated.
          In the BBC programme "Face the Facts" on 23 February 1989 a commentator interviewed a Mr. Keith Porter at the Birmingham accident hospital about a horrific accident, the details of which I will not relate. Apparently a rottweiler was being stroked by a small child through a fence. The boy was badly attacked and needed new skin on his damaged legs. The commentator said:
          "As well as having to treat more and more victims of vicious dogs, the burden on the National Health Service weighs heavy in terms of cost."
          I would have thought the Government would be seeking ways to reduce NHS expenditure.
          The commentator continued:
          "Last year around five million pounds. The latest figures for injuries show that in 1986 four people died as a result of dog bites, twelve hundred were treated as hospital in-patients, and in one metropolitan hospital surveyed at random, three per cent. of all those who visited the Accident and Emergency Department had been bitten by dogs."
          There is a problem, and solving it will involve cost. It will not go away, and it is increasing. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) gave a larger figure because he included all the costs in the use of public services for the problems raised by dogs, and those problems will not go away.
          2 am
          The Secretary of State said that the Bradford dog warden scheme is good, and employs five people at a modest cost. Let me tell him about the case of a headmaster in a primary school who took a small boy back home because he was ill. Of the three doberman pinschers at the house, one broke its chain and attacked the headmaster, breaking his arm and biting him badly. The dog was put down, but was immediately replaced by a rottweiler, so the family kept three dogs. In an adjacent house lived a young mother with an 18-month-old daughter. Every now and again, by accident or design, or as a result of carelessness, the dogs were released. When they were straying about, she was a prisoner in her house because she dared not go out with the child in case one of the dogss should pounce on them.
          The mother would call the dog warden service, but on Sundays it was not staffed sufficiently well to enable it to round up so many dogs. There is no limit on the number
          1068
          of dogs that people can have, and these people chose to have three. Perhaps dog registration would cause them to think about the decisions that they take. They might have thought twice before replacing so rapidly the dog that had to be put down. The Secretary of State praises the Bradford service, but good though it is, it is not adequate to deal with those problems, although they arose from a family who were careless, incompetent and irresponsible in their ownership of dogs. Such situations are repeated elsewhere.
          The measures that the Secretary of State has announced do not have any matching facilities. In the example that he used—Bradford—the facilities are not adequate, and more is needed. An important step to start control of these problems and of the growing number of dangerous, ferocious and threatening dogs would be a dog registration scheme. I hope that the Secretary of State can understand that.
          Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I declare an interest as a member of the RSPCA and of the all-party animal welfare group, and as a vice-president of the London Wildlife Trust. I would like to think of myself as a friend of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes). It pains me to disagree with her as I think that she is one of the most courageous of people in dealing with animal welfare issues, and she has led many campaigns with which I agree. I agree with 99 out of 100 campaigns led by the RSPCA, but I disagree with it in this particular instance. It is sad that in this campaign irresponsibilities and inaccuracies have been made at great expense. When the RSPCA criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), I felt that that was close to heresy, for she is fragrant. It is also sad that the advertisements with pictures of the large number of dogs that have had to be destroyed by the RSPCA use figures and pictures that have been greatly exaggerated.
          All the information that I use will come from a document that has been mentioned by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) sought honesty and integrity, and I hope to provide him with some, for the document from which I shall quote— and from which a large part of the hon. Gentleman's speech derived—is entitled "A summary of the report commissioned by the RSPCA (1989)" by the London School of Economics and Political Science. Other hon. Members also quoted that document, but not page 3, and those who referred obliquely to page 3, which deals with the cost of the scheme, did not do so accurately.
          It is true that in 1988 dog ownership in the United Kingdom totalled 7·3 million—an increase of 500,000 over 1987. It is true also that the figure is likely to continue increasing, and that the LSE stated that compulsory registration and identification is an essential part of any solution. However, no hon. Member mentioned the LSE's finding that
          "There are about 500,000 dogs loose in the streets or countryside every day. Evidence from dog wardens shows that less than half of these dogs are lost. Many of the straying dogs are 'latchkey' dogs. These dogs are allowed by their owners to roam the streets, fouling pavements, playing fields and parks, and contributing to many road accidents. Some of them cause injury to humans, or savage other pets and farm livestock. There is at present no law in Great Britain to prevent owners from letting dogs stray."
          I hope that no right hon. or hon. Member disagrees with the LSE's other finding:

          1069
          "About 240,000 stray dogs are taken to the police station each year by wardens and others, and officially recorded with the police as strays."
          The summary adds that a further 250,000 strays are identified by wardens and returned directly to their owners without being recorded by the police. That makes a total of 500,000 strays. The summary adds:
          "About 60,000 of the recorded strays are claimed by their owners."
          Therefore, responsible owners who lose their dogs will bother to claim them, but I wonder how many would do so if their dogs were not registered and they were under an obligation to pay a registration charge as a condition of reclaiming their dogs. The summary continues:
          "Others are not traced within the seven days and the dogs must be kept in the pound…About 90,000 unclaimed strays are found new homes by the animal shelters."
          I wonder whether, with registration, that figure of 90,000 would reduce because of the extra cost involved. It would certainly not increase, because at present there is no registration charge to the new owner, apart from a voluntary payment to the shelter.
          The summary continues:
          "The remaining 90,000 unclaimed strays have to be destroyed each year to make room in the shelter for new strays."
          If those figures are accurate, about 250 dogs are destroyed every day on the basis of a seven-day week, or 280 per day in a six-day week—not the 1,000 per day mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). In any event, the photograph in the RSPCA advertisement was a collage of the same dogs, as was subsequently admitted.
          Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend gives the figure for animal shelters only, whereas the RSPCA's statistics relate to dogs destroyed by the RSPCA, by the police, and by others.
          Mr. Hanley: I am merely quoting from the information which has been sent to hon. Members in order that they may balance their arguments.
          Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: The information given by the RSPCA states that it has to put down 131,000 animals of all kinds per year. The figure of 1,000 per day therefore covers other organisations.
          Mr. Hanley: That is most interesting and goes a long way towards confirming what I was saying—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) says that it does not. His contribution showed that not only are ther dangers normally when he thinkds, but that when he thinks on his feet and open his mouth, he puts his foot right in it. When he talked about guide dogs for the blind he was corrected and told that they were registered anyway. He may have known that —if he did, I will give him credit for it—but he then said that pensioners should be exempt from registration.
          Dr. Cunningham: We are asking the Secretary of State. I said that they would be exempt from paying the fee.
          Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman said that they would be exempt from registration. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] When I heard him, I immediately thought that they should be exempt from the fee, which has always been designed within the registration process, but not that they should be exempt from registration. If, when I read the debate tomorrow, I find that I am wrong, I will willingly apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
          Dr. Cunningham: We need not argue about it. The point was made by the Patronage Secretary from a sedentary position that pensioners would not be able to afford the cost. I said that they could be exempt from the cost, not the registration.
          Mr. Hanley: I will willingly check that in the morning and I will willingly apologise if necessary, but I heard what I heard.
          I wish to pose a few questions. How will registration deal with the irresponsible, lazy, ignorant or unaware dog owner, or with the deliberate law breaker—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) says, "You track him down". We track down the dog owners, whose details are on a register only if they have registered their dogs. Those who choose to register their dogs are the responsible ones. I cannot see how this scheme would help the irresponsible, the ignorant, those who are unaware of the legislation or those who deliberately break the law. Those are the people with whom we should be dealing, but we cannot do that by imposing charges which would deter them further.
          I wish to place in context the level of charges contained in the document produced by the LSE. The figures of £65 and £15 have been mentioned. When the hon. Member for Truro talked about honesty and integrity, he did not mention the charges. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Drake did not mention the charges set out within the document. I will give them fully because they are important. A one-off payment would be £57, or £66 including a tattoo.
          Dame Janet Fookes: I specifically said in my opening speech that the fees and the arrangements could vary depending on the type of scheme in operation but that in the short time available wanted to argue for the principle rather than go into the details of the schemes. It is therefore unfair to suggest that I did not give those details when I explained why I was not doing so.
          Mr. Hanley: In no way did I want to give the impression that I believed that my hon. Friend had deliberately left out that information. I hope that she will be pleased that I shall give the information in my speaking time because some of my constituents changed their minds as soon as they heard the figures, which were £57 for the one-off payment or £66 with tattooing, which was regarded by the LSE as essential. It may be tattooing or the permanent fixture of, perhaps, an electrical tag under the skin. In either case, £66 is the figure that we should consider, or a charge of £23, including tattooing, coupled with a £7 annual fee. We have heard that reminders would have to be sent to people which would further increase the cost.
          A discount is given for neutered dogs, which are much less of a problem when loose. The registration fee might be £25 for all dogs, with an annual renewal fee of E8 for neutered dogs and £20 for all other dogs. That means that when a dog has a litter the owner will have to register each dog and pay the one-off or first-time charge. If he does not want to do that, he will have to get rid of the dogs, which means finding people prepared to pay £65 or £23 in addition to any charge for the dogs. I would hope that in those circumstances there would be no charge for the dog. It would be extremely difficult to find people prepared to make those payments. The proposed scheme would further persuade people to put down unwanted litters. I

          1071
          believe that if the scheme were introduced, there would be mass extermination of dogs whose owners did not wish to register them. That would be wrong.
          2.15am
          Registration will not curb the bad or natural behaviour of dogs. The hon. Member for Bradford, South referred to a number of instances where dogs have savaged human beings and caused injury, but not once did he say that the owner of the dog could not be identified. Of course individuals should be responsible for the actions of their dogs, but registration will not improve identification of the individual. The hon. Member for Bradford, South said that in each instance to which he referred the owner had been identified. There should be a direct responsibility upon an owner for any injuries caused by his dog, but registration will not achieve that. It will simply introduce an additional inconvenience for responsible dog owners.
          Registration will not stop dogs fouling public places. One of the most dangerous and disgusting features of dog ownership—I have been a dog owner for most of my life, but I am not one at present—is the fact that dogs foul public places, and all too often their owners ignore the obvious. We see dog owners with dogs on leads walking along the pavements of domestic side roads with their dogs fouling behind them. The owners look in the opposite direction as if it is not happening, but as soon as the fouling has stopped, they pat their dog and say, "Good dog." They know what has happened and they also know where it has happened. Pavements, grass verges, parks and school playing fields are not dog lavatories, but registration will not end that problem because there will never be enough wardens to police every field, park and playing field.
          It is the responsible dog owner who would suffer if the registration scheme were introduced. The irresponsible owner would continue to ignore his responsibilities. The main sufferers would be the dogs that were put down because irresponsible owners refused to identify them. They would refuse to do so in the knowledge that they would be fined as soon as the dog was relocated with them. Irresponsible people would deny the existence of their dogs.
          I acknowledge that the RSPCA is a most responsible body, and I understand that the scheme will be supported by the millions who condone the society's actions, but that does not make registration right. If a Government were to introduce a compulsory scheme with charges at the proposed levels, they would pay dearly for so doing. If a Government cannot introduce moderate and reasonable reforms of the National Health Service, what will happen to any Government who introduce the compulsory registration of dogs? Perhaps Opposition Members are so keen that the Government should introduce an unpopular scheme that they are prepared to support the RSPCA's scheme.
          Mr. Rogers: I am sorry that this has become a combative debate. I do not accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) that the Government are on trial. The fact is that a problem exists and that hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to discuss it.
          1072
          I am sorry that, in a sense, dogs are on trial. I say that as a dog lover. The relationship between a dog and its owner is a long-standing one. We have talked for many years about dogs being man's best friend. The relationship of dogs with a family is important. However, many dogs are out of control, and it is clear that they need to be brought under control.
          My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) illustrated the problem in clear terms. He referred to dogs getting into school playgrounds and to the difficulty of identifying the owners of the dogs. Unless the owners of the dogs can be identifed, there will always be a problem.
          A dog registration scheme, either national or local, needs to be implemented. The relationship between the owner and the dog must be established. It is not the Government who are on trial. Hon. Members are on trial. We must grow up and tackle the problem. It is not the £60 million or £70 million that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) mentioned that is important. It is the children who are being mutilated by dogs that are not kept under control who are important. Until that relationship between a dog and its owner is established, we shall be failing in our duty.
          Mr. Vivian Bendall: I support the establishment of a dog registration scheme, but it would not solve all the problems that are associated with dogs.
          I welcome the announcement tonight by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but I want to go into the reasons why there are so many vicious dogs. The public need to be educated about the types of dog that they purchase. Many people do not realise that they may be purchasing a potentially dangerous dog.
          There should also be a proper licensing of breeders. For far too long there has been too much interbreeding, especially of vicious dogs. [Interruption.] When I talk about interbreeding I am referring to mothers and sons—[Interruption.] It is a serious problem. It is one of the reasons why dogs are vicious. Interbreeding causes serious problems.
          We should license the breeder. The law stipulates that two or more breeding bitches should be registered, but that does not happen. We should put that right. We should also deal with puppy farms. Thirty or 40 bitches may be breeding at any given time. The puppies are sent to London and to other large conurbations. When people go to pet shops they cannot find the kind of dog they want. Dogs are often incorrectly described. We should license both breeders and the owners of pet shops. We might then stand a chance of controlling the sale of vicious breeds of dogs.
          Vicious dogs are to be found in other countries as well. It has been a dramatic problem in the United States of America for some years on account of vicious doberman pinschers, pit bull terriers, other types of bull terriers and rottweilers. Certain individuals want to own a particularly vicious type of dog. The danger is that these individuals deliberately train their dogs to be vicious. That is borne out by the immense increase in illegal dog fighting using Staffordshire bull terriers. Five Staffordshire bull terriers have been stolen in my constituency during the last five weeks. I am convinced, as are the owners and other people, that the dogs were stolen to be trained for dog fighting. A number of British people are participating in this revolting sport.

          1073
          I declare an interest. For two years, I have had two Staffordshire bull terriers. That kind of dog behaves properly if it is brought up properly. Vicious breeds can be trained to be vicious. Sadly, some breeds are falling into the wrong hands. That is part of the trouble. I should like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ensure that licences are required to import pit bull terriers from America so that we know exactly who has them and where they are going. That would alleviate some of the problems.
          The other day, I heard that a pit bull terrier which had been imported from America and lived on an estate in south London had bitten three policemen and generally caused havoc on the estate. Finally, the RSPCA took the dog off the estate, only to have its officers told as they were leaving that the dog had had puppies 10 weeks before which had been given away to people all around the estate.
          The problems will be resolved not just by registration but by a combination of measures. There must be dog registration to deal with strays and with the other problems that hon. Members have described.
          Mr. Tony Banks: Like others, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) for her campaigns on behalf not only of dogs but of animals generally. We owe her a great debt. I shall support new clause 34, but we need to go further. It is only a start. We have argued for a proper licence scheme to enable local authorities to get the funds necessary to run adequate dog warden schemes and help pay for the various "poop" schemes—I cannot think of a better expression—that are run by local authorities. Westminster city council has been running a dog mess clearing scheme. Paris has an effective scheme as well.
          Such schemes need substantial resources, which can come only from a substantial dog licence scheme. They could help to pay for education courses in schools and among dog owners. Many responsible owners know little about dog ownership. With a properly funded dog licence scheme, money could be provided for the training of owners so that they looked after their dogs more adequately.
          As one who comes from the East End of London, I know that many dogs are kept not as pets but as cheap burglar alarms. Dogs are used as protection against our increasingly violent society. People deliberately opt for the large, exotic and savage dog. If one wants to deter people from breaking into one's house, there is not much point in having a chihuahua, a poodle or a pekinese. One will choose a dog that will frighten people away. These savage dogs are a manifestation of Thatcherism. I was going to say that I could not think of a dog more appropriate to Thatcherism than a rottweiler, but I would not want to insult rottweilers because they are rather nice and loving dogs—the problem is with the owners.
          We have been considering the Bill for two days. When we started the debate on new clause 34, the House was packed. When we were talking about the dramatic rent increases that council tenants will have to face in years to come and about housing conditions, there was hardly a Conservative Member here. Yet the House suddenly fills with Members wanting to hear the Secretary of State rambling on like some weird old looney about a scheme that, quite frankly, can be described only as a dog's break fast.
          Yesterday the House was full to hear statements about hazelnut yoghurt. I do not know what this House is
          1074
          coming to; it is far more interested in hazelnut yoghurt and dogs than in people. That is a very sad comment. Although the new clause is to be welcomed, I should like Conservative Members to show a little more interest in the needs of people—especially those on low incomes living on council estates and elsewhere in inner cities—and a little less concern for attention-grabbing debates which do not deal with the real problems of the people of this country.
          2.30 am
          Mr. James Couchman: In January 1985, the European Parliament addressed itself to the question of tattooing dogs' ears in pursuance of a dog registration scheme. I drew the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to that and asked her to confirm that this country would have nothing to do with it. She replied:
          "I thought it was absolutely ridiculous. I hope that the European Assembly has something better to do with its time than that."—[Official Report, 22 January 1985; Vol. 71, c. 858]
          My right hon. Friend was right then and she would be right now if she were to repeat her contempt for that debate in the European Assembly.
          None of us should be surprised that there is such enthusiasm among Opposition Members for a dog registration scheme. It would mean the creation of public sector jobs, something much beloved of Opposition Members. If I thought for one moment that a dog registration scheme would solve the problems that have been enumerated at length this evening, of irresponsible owners with badly trained dogs, I would support it. Whatever sort of registration scheme might be put in place, the responsible owner will register, pay whatever fee is demanded of him, look after his dog and ensure that it does not stray and behave in an irresponsible and anti-social manner. The irresponsible dog owner, however, will continue with his usual stewardship of his dog and allow it to roam free and unregistered, doing what it wants. The attacks during recent weeks have involved dogs of the sort kept by those who simply would not register them, whatever the law. I shall have no difficulty in opposing the new clause.
          Mr. Peter Griffiths: The fact that there is no simple solution to the problems posed by dogs in society is not a good reason to reject any components of the complex solution necessary. The measures announced by the Department of the Environment and the Home Department are all welcome, but they will not, by themselves, solve the problems. No one who supports the idea of a dog registration scheme suggests that, even with an adequate fee, it would alone solve the problems. It is part of a complex solution to a complex problem.
          The essential component is a national registration scheme to complement the detailed knowledge of local authorities on such matters as areas from which dogs should be excluded, such as playgrounds for very young children, and places where dogs should be kept on leads, such as beaches. Contributions can be made locally, but there needs to be a national registration scheme because dogs are easily transported from one place to another and it is quite wrong to place the burden of dealing with the problems on the local authorities alone.
          Any scheme must be adequately financed. If it is not to be entirely financed by dog owners, national funds must be made available to local authorities so that they can operate a proper scheme. It is not reasonable for the House to call

          1075
          for legislation but not provide adequate finance. Hon. Members who are advocating a dog registration scheme must call upon owners to pay a dog licence fee and must accept that there will be a cost to the national or local taxpayer.
          The problem is complex, so we must have a range of responses to it. I believe that we should have a national dog registration scheme, and the new clause gives us an opportunity to provide one.
          Mr. Richard Page: One of the advantages of speaking down the batting order is that one does not need to go over the ground too deeply for the second or third time.
          Sensing the mood of the House, I say at once that I welcome the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which recognise that solid solutions are necessary to allay the concerns of my constituents, and follow, almost word for word, the leader article in yesterday's Daily Telegraph. No doubt the clairvoyant qualities of the reporter will be rewarded by its editor in due course.
          Even if my right hon. Friend had not made his proposals, I would have opposed the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes). I do not doubt her sincerity or the amount of work that she has done on the subject, but she was a little shy about the cost of the scheme. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) fully recognised the point about the impact of the scheme on pensioners, the unemployed or the person who needs a dog for company.
          I am unhappy about the way in which the RSPCA ran its campaign. It thought that badgering Members would cause them to change their minds because they would receive more and more letters.
          A registration scheme would create a layer of bureaucracy, with all the paraphernalia of enforcement, snooping, rights of access and persecution, but for what purpose? It will not make irresponsible owners responsible. Only responsible owners will register, but it is the irresponsible ones we are after. Enforcement is needed, and registration will not make bad owners responsible.
          A bite by a dog, whether it is registered or not, will still be painful. The job is to catch that dog and then pursue the legal processes. The Government's proposals, coupled with existing provisions, will provide a positive solution and I hope that the House will support them.
          Mr. Devlin: I support the new clause because the ownership of dogs is far too casually entered into. Twenty-eight per cent. of households in Britain own a dog, and the number of dogs increased by 500,000 last year to 7·3 million. About 250,000 people were injured last year by dog bites, which is 700 a day. We cannot permit such a number of vicious dogs.
          We should be trying to find a system of controlling the number of dogs, and I believe that registration will do so. Under the new system, any dog that does not have a licence should be destroyed, which would solve the problem.
          Mr. Ridley: I will not reply to all the many points raised in this interesting and constructive debate. However, I will study a number of suggestions made by my hon. Friends
          1076
          and other hon. Members as we prepare the legislation to put my announcement into practice. There has been general agreement, with degrees of enthusiasm, about the three sets of measures I proposed, about the need for local authorities to have wardens and about the vital need for identification of dogs in enforcing the powers we shall give to local authorities.
          The dispute has been over how to pay for that service. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins), in which he asked whether it would be right to ask only parents to pay for education, underlined the argument about whether we should have a hypothecated tax or whether the revenue should come from general taxation. It would be nice if we could charge only the irresponsible dog owners for the service, just as it would be nice if we could charge only very bad and dangerous drivers for the cost of road accidents. If we propose to put the cost only on good drivers or only on good dog owners, the case is made for paying for the service out of general revenues. As the dog registration scheme is so complicated, bureaucratic and expensive to administer, the House should conclude that it should adopt my proposals and not proceed to the dog registration scheme.
          Dame Janet Fookes: Although I welcome some of the points put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I do not regard them as a substitute for a well-organised dog registration scheme. Most, if not all, of his suggestions depend on being able accurately to pinpoint the owner of the dog. That is where the registration system comes in. The new clause does not insist on a particular form. I described the type of scheme that I should like to see, but if the new clause is passed, it would be left to the Secretary of State to come forward with a scheme after whatever consultations he wishes to make. Nobody is being committed to a particular formula this evening. Having said that, I am anxious to move to a vote. This is an important measure. It is not a panacea for all ills, but a very important step forward.
          Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
          The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 159.

          Divison No. 244]

          [2.42 am

          AYES

          Abbott, Ms Diane

          Campbell-Savours, D. N.

          Aitken, Jonathan

          Cartwright, John

          Alexander, Richard

          Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

          Allason, Rupert

          Clay, Bob

          Alton, David

          Clelland, David

          Anderson, Donald

          Clwyd, Mrs Ann

          Archer, Rt Hon Peter

          Cohen, Harry

          Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

          Coleman, Donald

          Barron, Kevin

          Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

          Battle, John

          Corbyn, Jeremy

          Beckett, Margaret

          Cousins, Jim

          Beith, A. J.

          Cox, Tom

          Bendall, Vivian

          Crowther, Stan

          Benn, Rt Hon Tony

          Cryer, Bob

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

          Cummings, John

          Bermingham, Gerald

          Cunliffe, Lawrence

          Biffen, Rt Hon John

          Cunningham, Dr John

          Blackburn, Dr John G.

          Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

          Blunkett, David

          Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

          Boateng, Paul

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

          Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

          Devlin, Tim

          Bradley, Keith

          Dixon, Don

          Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

          Dobson, Frank

          Buckley, George J.

          Dover, Den

          Callaghan, Jim

          Eastham, Ken

          Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

          Evans, John (St Helens N)

          1077

          Fatchett, Derek

          Marek, Dr John

          Fearn, Ronald

          Meale, Alan

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

          Michael, Alun

          Fisher, Mark

          Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

          Flannery, Martin

          Mills, Iain

          Flynn, Paul

          Miscampbell, Norman

          Fookes, Dame Janet

          Morgan, Rhodri

          Foot, Rt Hon Michael

          Murphy, Paul

          Foster, Derek

          Nellist, Dave

          Franks, Cecil

          O'Brien, William

          Fraser, John

          Patchett, Terry

          Fry, Peter

          Pike, Peter L.

          Gale, Roger

          Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

          George, Bruce

          Prescott, John

          Gordon, Mildred

          Primarolo, Dawn

          Gould, Bryan

          Redmond, Martin

          Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

          Richardson, Jo

          Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

          Rogers, Allan

          Grocott, Bruce

          Rooker, Jeff

          Hannam, John

          Rowlands, Ted

          Hardy, Peter

          Ruddock, Joan

          Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

          Sedgemore, Brian

          Haynes, Frank

          Sheerman, Barry

          Henderson, Doug

          Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

          Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

          Skinner, Dennis

          Hinchliffe, David

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

          Holt, Richard

          Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

          Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

          Soley, Clive

          Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

          Spearing, Nigel

          Hoyle, Doug

          Summerson, Hugo

          Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

          Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

          Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

          Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

          Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

          Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

          Illsley, Eric

          Temple-Morris, Peter

          Irving, Charles

          Thornton, Malcolm

          Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

          Turner, Dennis

          Kirkwood, Archy

          Wall, Pat

          Leadbitter, Ted

          Wallace, James

          Leighton, Ron

          Walley, Joan

          Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

          Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

          Lewis, Terry

          Watts, John

          Litherland, Robert

          Williams, Rt Hon Alan

          Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

          Winterton, Mrs Ann

          Lofthouse, Geoffrey

          Winterton, Nicholas

          McAllion, John

          Wise, Mrs Audrey

          McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

          McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          McWilliam, John

          Mr. Tony Banks and

          Mahon, Mrs Alice

          Mrs. Llin Golding.

          NOES

          Alison, Rt Hon Michael

          Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

          Amess, David

          Colvin, Michael

          Arbuthnot, James

          Conway, Derek

          Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

          Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

          Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

          Couchman, James

          Ashby, David

          Cran, James

          Atkinson, David

          Currie, Mrs Edwina

          Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

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

          Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

          Day, Stephen

          Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

          Dorrell, Stephen

          Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

          Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

          Boscawen, Hon Robert

          Dunn, Bob

          Bottomley, Peter

          Durant, Tony

          Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

          Eggar, Tim

          Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

          Emery, Sir Peter

          Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

          Fallon, Michael

          Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

          Favell, Tony

          Bright, Graham

          Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

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

          Fishburn, John Dudley

          Budgen, Nicholas

          Forman, Nigel

          Burns, Simon

          Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

          Burt, Alistair

          Forth, Eric

          Butterfill, John

          Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

          Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

          Freeman, Roger

          Carrington, Matthew

          Garel-Jones, Tristan

          Carttiss, Michael

          Gill, Christopher

          Chapman, Sydney

          Glyn, Dr Alan

          Chope, Christopher

          Gorst, John

          Churchill, Mr

          Gow, Ian

          1078

          Greenway, John (Ryedale)

          Mellor, David

          Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

          Miller, Sir Hal

          Grist, Ian

          Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

          Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

          Morris, M (N'hampton S)

          Hague, William

          Morrison, Sir Charles

          Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

          Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

          Hanley, Jeremy

          Moss, Malcolm

          Harris, David

          Moynihan, Hon Colin

          Haselhurst, Alan

          Neale, Gerrard

          Hawkins, Christopher

          Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

          Hayes, Jerry

          Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

          Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

          Page, Richard

          Hayward, Robert

          Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

          Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

          Patten, Chris (Bath)

          Hill, James

          Patten, John (Oxford W)

          Hind, Kenneth

          Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

          Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

          Riddick, Graham

          Hordern, Sir Peter

          Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

          Howard, Michael

          Rumbold, Mrs Angela

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

          Ryder, Richard

          Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

          Sackville, Hon Tom

          Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

          Shaw, David (Dover)

          Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

          Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

          Hunt, David (Wirral W)

          Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

          Hunter, Andrew

          Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

          Irvine, Michael

          Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

          Jack, Michael

          Squire, Robin

          Janman, Tim

          Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

          Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

          Steen, Anthony

          Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

          Stevens, Lewis

          Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

          Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

          Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

          Stradling Thomas, Sir John

          Key, Robert

          Sumberg, David

          Kirkhope, Timothy

          Taylor, Ian (Esher)

          Knapman, Roger

          Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

          Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

          Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

          Knowles, Michael

          Thurnham, Peter

          Lang, Ian

          Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

          Lawrence, Ivan

          Trippier, David

          Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

          Twinn, Dr Ian

          Lightbown, David

          Waddington, Rt Hon David

          Lilley, Peter

          Waller, Gary

          Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

          Ward, John

          Luce, Rt Hon Richard

          Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

          Maclean, David

          Wells,Bowen

          McLoughlin, Patrick

          Wheeler, John

          McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

          Widdecombe, Ann

          Mans, Keith

          Wood, Timothy

          Marshall, John (Hendon S)

          Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

          Tellers for the Noes:

          Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

          Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

          Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

          Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

          Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

          Question accordingly negatived.

        New Clause 38

          PAYMENTS AND ALLOWANCES TO COUNCILLORS
          `Any payments or allowances paid to councillors for duties performed as councillors shall be index linked to gross local government salary and wage scales.'—[Mr. Matthew Taylor.]
          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          The new clause is designed largely to express anxiety about the Government's intentions to change the method of paying allowances to councillors and to cap funds available for the purpose. It is ironic that the Government's changes will penalise the most hard-working councillors and reward those who are slothful. The vast majority of councillors are hard-working and unrewarded for it, but a few are not. The irony lies in the fact that the Government incessantly talk of incentives for hard work.

          1079
          The new clause ensures that hard-working councillors who will lose out anyway under the changes will at least be protected against inflation. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept the new clause as a sign of good faith to them.
          Mr. Gummer: I cannot possibly agree with the hon. Gentleman's attitude to allowances for councillors. Being a member of a council is a voluntary job, not a paid one. The idea that payment should be organised to reward these people is wholly foreign to the concept that the Government have put forward.
          The Government believe it reasonable that there should be some expenses, and we are looking for a form of flat rate allowance to get away from the present system, in which more and more meetings are held so as to claim more and more allowances.
          I have no sympathy with the proposal, which betrays a failure to understand how local government should work. We oppose paying councillors, and to link their allowances with the pay increases of local government officers would mean that we were in favour of paid councillors. I hope that the House will reject the proposal.
          Mr. Taylor: Nothing that the Minister has said convinces me that he has any intention even of protecting councillors against inflation. He did not answer my point that that rewards sloth. It is therefore difficult to convince me, even at this late hour, that I should withdraw the motion—[Interruption.] As Conservative Members say that I should not do so, I shall press the matter.
          Question put and negatived.

        New Clause 48

          PROTECTION FROM EVICTION BY APPROVED LANDLORD
          'In section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, the following subsection shall be added after subsection (5)—
          "The court shall not make an order for possession on Ground 6 in Schedule 2 to this Act if the landlord is a person approved under section 94 of this Act and the dwelling-house was acquired by the landlord under Part IV of this Act".'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]
          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          The new clause would secure protection from eviction in cases in which an approved landlord takes over property under the Housing Act 1988, under what is called tenants' choice. I pursued this suggestion in Committee and on the Floor of the House in the last Session. I continue to pursue it because it is important that tenants whose properties are taken over by private landlords should not be worried that they will be evicted because a landlord wants to develop their homes.
          The former Minister with responsibility for housing, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), in the last Session described as a "terrifying prospect" the idea that landlords could evict tenants from council properties they had taken over because they wanted to redevelop them. In an answer given me on 9 November 1988, the Under-Secretary of State suggested that the Government would re-examine the matter. He said that although they intended to require the Housing Corporation to require new landlords not to avail
          1080
          themselves of ground 6 of schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 as a method of gaining possession, none the less they might consider that that would be better dealt with by statute than by contract.
          3 am
          That raises the issue of which would prevail—the contract or the statute. It is important for the matter to be clear beyond doubt in statute so that it stands no risk of being overruled, if in statute, eviction is permitted. Secondly, as Housing Ministers have admitted to me, there is precedent elsewhere in legislation. Section 34 of the 1988 Act makes clear that statute would overrule a contract. Therefore, it is logical to suggest that in this case the same would apply. If the Government want to be consistent they should amend the statute rather than presume that it would have no force.
          Tenants remain highly suspicious that the powers of a new landlord who might take over from the council might be excessive and could easily be abused. In areas such as north Southwark and north Lambeth close to central London and the City, there is no doubt that council housing would be of great interest to landlords wishing to redevelop property for up-market renting or sale with little or no regard for existing tenants.
          I hope that after reflection over several months the Government can now accept that to amend statute would remove any possibility of landlords exploiting a dangerous possibility under existing legislation. I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to give tenants complete security, which is what the new clause seeks to achieve.
          Mr. Trippier: I shall be brief. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has accurately described the undertaking that I gave him and the House in November. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the past the Government have been reluctant to move an amendment to the former Act because we thought that that was unnecessary. However, on reconsideration and bearing in mind the complexity of the matter that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, he will be pleased to learn that we have concluded that an amendment to deal with it and the point in statute is the best course. If he will withdraw his new clause, the Government will prepare a suitable amendment in another place. Our intention is to provide that ground 6 would not be available where the landlord seeking possession has acquired the dwelling house in question under part IV of the Housing Act 1988, where possession is sought from a tenant who prior to acquisition was under part IV a tenant of a public sector landlord.
          Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Tenants will be greatly relieved to learn that the Government are willing to amend the law. I look forward to the introduction of an appropriate amendment in another place before long. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
          Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

        Schedule 5

          LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1988: AMENDMENTS
          Amendment proposed: No. 60 in, page 150, line 27, at end insert—

          1081
          '(3A) At the end of paragraph 10(1) (winding up) there shall be added "or, as the case may be, section 221(5)(b) of that Act (winding up of unregistered companies)".'.—[Mr. Trippier.]
          Question put, That the amendment be made:—
          The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 17.

          Division No. 245]

          [3.03 am

          AYES

          Alison, Rt Hon Michael

          Hayes, Jerry

          Amess, David

          Hayward, Robert

          Arbuthnot, James

          Heathcoat-Amory, David

          Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

          Hind, Kenneth

          Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

          Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

          Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

          Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

          Biffen, Rt Hon John

          Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

          Boscawen, Hon Robert

          Hunt, David (Wirral W)

          Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

          Irvine, Michael

          Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

          Jack, Michael

          Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

          Janman, Tim

          Bright, Graham

          Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

          Knapman, Roger

          Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

          Knowles, Michael

          Burns, Simon

          Lang, Ian

          Burt, Alistair

          Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

          Butterfill, John

          Lightbown, David

          Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

          Lilley, Peter

          Carrington, Matthew

          Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

          Carttiss, Michael

          Maclean, David

          Chapman, Sydney

          McLoughlin, Patrick

          Chope, Christopher

          Mans, Keith

          Conway, Derek

          Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

          Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

          Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

          Couchman, James

          Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

          Cran, James

          Mills, Iain

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

          Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

          Day, Stephen

          Morrison, Sir Charles

          Devlin, Tim

          Moynihan, Hon Colin

          Dorrell, Stephen

          Ryder, Richard

          Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

          Shaw, David (Dover)

          Dover, Den

          Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

          Dunn, Bob

          Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

          Durant, Tony

          Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

          Emery, Sir Peter

          Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

          Fallon, Michael

          Stevens, Lewis

          Favell, Tony

          Summerson, Hugo

          Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

          Taylor, Ian (Esher)

          Forman, Nigel

          Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

          Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

          Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

          Forth, Eric

          Thurnham, Peter

          Franks, Cecil

          Trippier, David

          Freeman, Roger

          Twinn, Dr Ian

          Gale, Roger

          Waddington, Rt Hon David

          Garel-Jones, Tristan

          Wallace, James

          Gill, Christopher

          Waller, Gary

          Gow, Ian

          Wardle, Charles (Bexhlll)

          Greenway, John (Ryedale)

          Watts, John

          Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

          Wells, Bowen

          Grist, Ian

          Wheeler, John

          Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

          Widdecombe, Ann

          Hague, William

          Wood, Timothy

          Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

          Hanley, Jeremy

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          Harris, David

          Mr. Alan Howarth and

          Hawkins, Christopher

          Mr. Tim Sackville.

          NOES

          Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

          Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

          Buckley, George J.

          Nellist, Dave

          Cryer, Bob

          Patchett, Terry

          Cunliffe, Lawrence

          Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

          Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

          Turner, Dennis

          Evans, John (St Helens N)

          Wise, Mrs Audrey

          Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

          Hinchliffe, David

          Tellers for the Noes:

          Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

          Mr. Martin Redmond and

          Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

          Mr. Eric Illsley.

          Meale, Alan

          Question accordingly agreed to.
          Amendments made: No. 61, in page 152, leave out line 44 and insert—
          '(4) For subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
          "(4) Where regulations are for the time being in force under this section prescribing a description of non-domestic hereditament in relation to a person designated in the regulations ("the previously designated person"), amending regulations altering the designated person in relation to whom that description of hereditament is prescribed may have effect from a date earlier than that on which the amending regulations are made.
          (4A) Where, by virtue of subsection (4) above, the designated person in relation to any description of non-domestic hereditament is changed from a date earlier than the making of the regulations,—

          (a) any necessary alteration shall be made with effect from that date to a central non-domestic rating list on which any hereditament concerned is shown; and

          (b) an order making the provision referred to in paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 6 below and specifying a description of hereditament by reference to the previously designated person shall be treated, with effect from that date, as referring to the person designated by the amending regulations.".'.

          No. 62, in page 152, line 45 leave out from beginning to `following' and insert—
          '15.—(1) Section 55 (alteration of lists) shall be amended as follows.
          (2) In subsection (4) (content of regulations)—

          (a) in paragraph (b) after "as to the " there shall be inserted "manner and" and at the end there shall be added "and the information to be included in a proposal";

          (b) in paragraph (d) for "making" there shall be substituted "and subsequent to the making of'; and

          (c) after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted—

          "(dd) as to the circumstances within which and the conditions upon which a proposal may be withdrawn".(3) In subsection (5) (regulations about appeals), for the words from "about" to "its alteration" there shall be substituted "between a valuaton officer and another person making a proposal for the alteration of a list—

          (a) about the validity of the proposal; or

          (b) about the accuracy of the list".

          (4) The'.—[Mr. Gummer.]
          3.15 am
          Sir Charles Morrison: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 153, line 24, leave out paragraph 18 and insert—
          18.—(1) Schedule 5 paragraph 5(1)(a) shall be amended as follows—
          "`After 'livestock' insert 'or the breeding or rearing of horses or ponies.—'".'.
          Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to debate amendment No. 3, in page 153, line 30, leave out 'any' and insert
          `more than two hectares of'.
          Amendment No. 4, in page 153, line 30, leave out 'or agricultural building'.
          Amendment No. 5, in page 153, line 36, leave out subsection (a) and insert—
          `(a) the proportion of such amount as the area of:500 square metres bears to the total floor area of such building.'.
          Amendment No. 6, in page 153, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 48.
          Sir Charles Morrison: Amendment No. 37 arises from a commitment given by Lord Caithness in another place during the course of the Local Government Finance Bill last year, and from my hon. Friend the Minister living up

          1083
          to that commitment in Committee on the Bill now before the House. I thank him for allowing time for discussion and correspondence on the derating of horse and pony breeding establishments, which has been a matter for debate for some years.
          From the early 1930s until the early 1980s, horse and pony breeding establishments were derated, stemming from a court case in the early 1930s, so for 50 years rating authorities, 13 consecutive Parliaments, Labour, Conservative and coalition Governments and countless Ministers accepted without question that derating existed.
          In the early 1980s a rating authority decided to question that belief and gave rise to what became known as the Whitsbury stud case. Ultimately, in the autumn of 1987, the House of Lords decided that for the previous 50 years the law had been misinterpreted and that studs should be rated. Not to put too fine a point on it—the judgment was a good deal more complicated—that was the general effect.
          During the progress of that case through the courts, I gained the impression that if it went wrong for horse and pony breeders, the Government would look sympathetically at the possibility of restoring the law as it was thought to be. However, Ministers come and go and my early impression proved to be misguided. None the less, intensive discussion took place and the outcome is schedule 5 as drafted.
          Amendment No. 37 aims at restoring the pre-Whitsbury stud case situation to provide exemption from rating for those who breed or rear horses or ponies. Such breeding is an agricultural activity, as it is for the purpose of income tax, corporation tax and capital taxation, and it should qualify for derating. That horse and pony breeding is an agricultural activity is emphasised by the fact that it occurs in conjunction with other agricultural activities such as cattle and sheep grazing.
          In an article in The Times yesterday, Sir Adam Butler writes that
          "three out of four thoroughbreds never get near a racecourse and a good proportion of them and of the half-breds and ponies end up as food."
          As a matter of interest, we are the biggest exporter of horseflesh for human consumption in the European Community, and a large proportion of our horsemeat is used in this country for dog and cat food.
          The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food actively encourages farmers to adopt alternative land use. Horse and pony breeding is a natural alternative, and one that meets the growing interest in horse riding. It would be unfortunate, to put it mildly, if a deterrent to breeding and rearing horses and ponies were constructed. I hope that the Government will accept amendment No. 37, but if not I trust that they will consider instead amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6.
          The Government's objective in their Committee concession was, to quote a letter from my right hon. Friend the Minister to Sir Adam Butler, to
          "extend the benefits of a reduction in rateable value to all breeding establishments which meet the agricultural requirements."
          To do that, the Government have inserted in lines 32 to 41 on page 153 of the Bill a method of reduction based on rateable value and subject to the introduction of an order by the Secretary of State stating the amount of rateable value to be taken into account when assessing a reduction.
          1084
          That method seems to have two weaknesses. First, it ensures that there will be continuing uncertainty about rating, both for those involved in the breeding of horses and ponies and, more importantly, for those who may be contemplating going into that business as an alternative land use. Secondly, rateable values will vary in different parts of the country, which will mean not only that a thoroughbred breeder in, for example, Newmarket has a lower overall reduction than the thoroughbred breeder in Yorkshire or the west country, but the small farmer turning partly to horse and pony breeding as an alternative land use in Surrey or Sussex will, in effect, receive less remission than his equivalent in Wales and other lower-rated areas.
          My amendments Nos. 3 to 6 aim to avoid those anomalies by reference to a reduction based on a common area of about 500 sq m. That is roughly equal to the area required for two mares and their young stock. I have a suspicion that initially the Government were thinking along the same lines as I was, but they for some unknown reason veered away to the more anomalous proposals.
          To sum up—[Interruption.] I am grateful to the House for that cheer. It is a great encouragement after working for seven years on this issue. I hope that the Government will be prepared to consider the total exemption, as it was before the Whitsbury stud case. If not, I hope that they will adopt my fallback position in amendments Nos. 3 to 6.
          Mr. Gummer: It is reasonable for us to expect every section of the business community to bear its share of the burden of rates. It would not be possible to exempt horse breeding in this way. It was uncharacteristic of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) to speak in the way that he did because the Government have gone a long way and have talked over many months to reach a solution to deal with the de minimis situation. It seemed unfair, for example, that a farmer breeding horses as part of his operation would find a small area of his operation was rated. We tried to reach a compromise to prevent that from happening. I thought that everyone agreed that this was reasonable.
          My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes asked, first, that we should get rid of all rating, and then that we should so extend the generous stand that my right hon. Friend in another place initially suggested as to cover a large number of people running a business like any other. It would be difficult to make that distinction. In my view, it would be wrong and unjustifiable. I cannot see the logic of it. My hon. Friend said that it would be more difficult now because there would be more people wishing to buy horses and be involved with horses, but that seems to be an argument on the other side.
          It would be good if the interests that my hon. Friend so admirably represents would accept that the Government have gone a long way towards meeting their wishes, and that our proposal is a reasonable and proper compromise which puts the industry at an advantage in relation to others. It is unreasonable to ask for any further compromise from the Government. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will seek leave to withdraw his amendment and support what the Government have done.
          Sir Charles Morrison: My right hon. Friend the Minister entirely ignored the history of the matter, but as

          1085
          the hour is late and I know that right hon. and hon. Members want to get on with the business, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
          Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
          Amendments made No. 63, in page 153, line 24, at end insert—
          '(1A) In paragraph 2, in sub-paragraph (7) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—
          "(cc) the quantity of refuse or waste material which is brought on to and permanently deposited on the hereditament".'.
          No. 225, in page 154, line 5, at end insert—
          '.—(1) In Schedule 8 (non-domestic rating: pooling) Part II (non-domestic rating contributions) shall be amended as follows.
          (2) In paragraph 5, at the end of sub-paragraph (1) there shall be added "and has effect subject to any provision made by virtue of paragraph 6(2A) below".
          (3) In paragraph 6, after sub-paragraph (2) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs—
          "(2A) Regulations under paragraph 4 above may incorporate in the rules provision for adjustments to be made in the calculation of the amount of an authority's non-domestic rating contribution under paragraph 5(2) or 5(6) above, being adjustments to take account of relevant changes affecting the amount of the authority's non-domestic rating contribution for an earlier year.
          (2B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2A) above, a change is a relevant change if it results from a decision, determination or other matter which (whether by reason of the time at which it was taken, made or occurred or otherwise) was not taken into account by the authority in the calculation under paragraph 5(6) above of the amount of its non-domestic rating contribution for the earlier year in question.".'.
          No. 64, in page 157, line 21, after 'time', insert 'being'.
          No. 65, in page 159, line 33, after 'maintenance', insert `grant'.—[Mr. Gummer.]

        Schedule 6

          AMENDMENT OF SCOTTISH ENACTMENTS
          Amendments made: No. 274, in page 162, line 8, at end insert—
          'Revenue support grants
          In section 23(2) of that Act, for the words from "a" onward there shall be substituted the words "grants (to be known as "revenue support grants") to local authorities".'.
          No. 272, in page 162, line 13, leave out paragraph 7 and insert—
          'Revenue support grant
          7. For paragraphs 1 to 3 of Schedule 4 to that Act (revenue support grants) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
          "1.—(1) The local authorities to which revenue support grant is payable in respect of a financial year shall be such local authorities as are specified by order made by the Secretary of State.
          (2) The amount of revenue support grant payable in respect of a financial year to a local authority so specified shall be such amount as is determined in relation to the local authority by order made by the Secretary of State.
          (3) The Secretary of State may at any time by order amend or revoke any order made under this paragraph and any amount of revenue support grant which has been paid and which, in consequence of anything done under this paragraph, falls to be repaid may be recovered by the Secretary of State whenever and however he thinks fit.
          2.—(1) An order under paragraph 1 above shall be made only with the consent of the Treasury.
          (2) Before making an order under paragraph 1 above the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be appropriate.
          1086
          (3) An order under paragraph 1 above together with a report of the considerations which led to its provisions shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament but shall have no effect until approved by a resolution of that House.".'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

        Clause 129

          POWER TO ALLOW CHARGES
          Amendments made: No. 50, in page 112, line 28, leave out 'to be a certain amount, or'.
          No. 51, in page 112, line 30, leave out from 'maximum' to end of line 31.
          No. 52, in page 112, line 32, leave out from 'provide' to 'amount' in line 33 and insert
          'that a charge may not exceed a minimum'.
          No. 53, in page 112, leave out lines 38 to 42.—[Mr. Gummer.]

        Clause 130

          POWER TO AMEND PROVISIONS ABOUT CHARGES
          Amendments made: No. 54, in page 113, line 38, leave out 'to be a certain amount, or'.
          No. 55, in page 113, line 39, leave out from 'maximum' to end of line 40.
          No. 56, in page 113, line 41, leave out from 'provide' to 'amount' in line 42 and insert
          'that a charge may not exceed a maximum'.
          No. 57, in page 114, leave out lines 1 to 5—[Mr. Gummer.]

        Clause 131

          INTERPRETATION, CONSULTATION AND COMMENCEMENT
          OF SS. 129 AND 130
          Amendments made: No. 241, in page 115, line 24. after 'consult', insert—
          '(a) as respects England and Wales.'.
          No. 242, in page 115, line 25, after 'government', insert 'and (b) as respects Scotland, such associations of local authorities'.—[Mr. Gummer.]

        Schedule 7

          WELSH LANGUAGE NAMES FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES
          Amendments made: No. 106, in page 163, line 19, leave out 'section 21(4)' and insert
          `by virtue of a resolution under section 21(5)'.
          No. 107, in page 163, line 22, leave out 'section 33(2A)' and insert
          `by virtue of a resolution under section 33(2B)'.
          No. 108, in page 163, line 23, at end insert—
          '6. After section 245 (status of certain districts, parishes and communities) there shall be inserted the following section—
          "Power for borough and town councils in Wales to adopt Welsh language form of their descriptions, etc.
          245A.—(1) If and so long as this subsection is in force in relation to a district in Wales which, by virtue of section 245(1) above, has the status of a borough or for which, by virtue of section 245(4) above, the style of borough may he used—

          (a) the council shall bear the name "Cyngor Bwrdeistref" instead of "Council of the Borough" or "Borough Council";

          (b) the chairman of the council shall be entitled to the style "maer" instead of "mayor"; and

          1087

          (c) the vice-chairman of the council shall be entitled to the style "dirprwy maer" instead of "deputy mayor".

          (2) Subject to subsection (3) below, subsection (1) above shall come into force in relation to a district which has the status of a borough, or for which the style of borough may be used, three months after the day on which, at a specially convened meeting of the council, it is resolved by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting that the Welsh language form of the council's description shall be used.
          (3) A resolution under subsection (2) above may be passed by the council of a district in Wales notwithstanding that, at the time it is passed, the council does not have the status of a borough; but, if a resolution is passed at such a time, subsection (1) above shall not come into force unless, nor earlier than, the status of a borough is conferred on the district by virtue of section 245(1) above.
          (4) Subsection (1) above shall cease to be in force in relation to a district which has the status of a borough, or for which the style of borough may be used, three months after the day on which, at a specially convened meeting of the council, it is resolved by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting that the Welsh language form of the council's description shall cease to be used.
          (5) If and so long as this subsection is in force in relation to a community which, by virtue of section 245(6) above, has the status of a town—

          (a) the council shall bear the name "Cyngor Tref" instead of "council of the town" or "town council";

          (b) the chairman of the council shall be entitled to the style "maer y dref" instead of "town mayor"; and

          (c) the vice-chairman of the council shall be entitled to the style "dirprwy faer y dref" instead of "deputy town mayor".

          (6) Subsection (5) above shall come into force in relation to a community which has the status of a town three months after the day on which, at a specially convened meeting of the council, it is resolved by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting that the Welsh language form of the council's description shall be used.
          (7) Subsection (5) above shall cease to he in force in relation to a community which has the status of a town three months after the day on which, at a specially convened meeting of the council, it is resolved by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting that the Welsh language form of the council's description shall cease to be used.
          (8) Subsection (10) of section 245 above has effect in relation to this section as it has effect in relation to the foregoing provisions of that section.".'.—[Mr. Glimmer.]

        Schedule 8

          AMENDMENTS OF PARTS VI, IX, XI, XVII AND XVIII OF THE HOUSING ACT 1985
          Amendments made: No. 16, in page 166, line 10, leave out from 'is' to 'or' in line 12 and insert
          'a protected occupier, within the meaning of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976'.
          No. 17, in page 175, line 11, leave out from 'entry)' to 'there' in line 13 and insert
          'at the end of subsection (3)'. —[Mr. Gummer.]

        Clause 139

          AMENDMENTS RELATING TO DEFECTIVE HOUSING
          Amendment made: No. 35, in page 123, line 29, at end insert—
          '(6) In section 567 of the 1985 Act (modifications of Part XVI in relation to shared ownership leases) for subsections (1) to (3) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
          "(1) If it appears to a local housing authority that the interest of a person eligible for assistance in respect of a defective dwelling in their area is—

          (a) a shared ownership lease, or

          (b) the freehold acquired under the terms of a shared ownership lease,

          1088
          the authority shall prepare and submit to the Secretary of State a scheme providing for the provisions of this Part to have effect, in their application to such a case, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the scheme.
          (2) A scheme under subsection (1) above shall not have effect unless approved by the Secretary of State; and any such approval may be made conditional upon compliance with requirements specified by him."
          (7) Any power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under subsection (4) of section 567 of the Housing Act 1985 shall cease to have effect; and in paragraph (d) of that section after the word "class" there shall be inserted "or description.".'.—[Mr. Gummer.]

        Clause 141

          POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND SECRETARY OF STATE AS RESPECTS SERVICES ETC. FOR OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS OF HOUSES FOR WORK ON THEM.
          Amendments made: No. 301, in page 124, line 5,
          leave out from 'provide' to second 'or' in line 7 and insert 'professional, technical and administrative services for owners or occupiers of dwellings in connection with their arranging or carrying out relevant works'.
          No. 302, in page 124, line 9, leave out 'they' and insert 'the authority'.
          No. 303, in page 124, line 9, at end insert—
          `() Works are relevant works in relation to a dwelling or, as the case may be, a dwelling in any area, if they are works of any of the following descriptions, that is to say—

          (a) works to cause the dwelling to be fit for human habitation,

          (b) where the occupant is disabled, works for any of the purposes specified in section 102(2) or (3) above,

          (c) works for any of the purposes specified in section 103(2) above, and

          (d) works for any of the purposes specified in or under section 117(1) above.'

          No. 304, in page 124, line 23, leave out 'houses' and insert 'dwellings'.
          No. 305, in page 124, leave out 39 to 44.
          No. 306, in page 124, line 49, leave out 'houses' and insert 'dwellings'.
          No. 307, in page 125, line 15 leave out from 'charities' to end of line 19.
          No. 308, in page 125, leave out 20 to 23.
          No. 58, in page 125, line 23, at end insert—
          '"housing association" means a housing association within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Housing Associations Act 1985, or a body established by such a housing association for the purpose of, or having among its purposes or objects, those mentioned in section 4(3)(e) of that Act (providing services of any description for owners or occupiers of houses in arranging or carrying out works of maintenance, repair or improvement, or encouraging or facilitating the carrying out of such works);'.
          No. 309, in page 125, line 27, leave out 'as respects England and Wales'.
          No. 310, in page 125, leave out lines 29 and 30—[Mr. Gummer.]

        Schedule 10

          MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
          3.30 am
          Mr. Gummer: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 191, line 6, at end insert—
          The Sexual Offences Act 1956
          In Schedule 1 to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (rights of landlord where tenant convicted of permitting use of premises

          1089
          as a brothel) at the end of paragraph 5 there shall be added "Part I of the Housing Act 1988 and Schedule 9 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989".'
          Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 13, 166, 14, 15 and 18.
          Mr. Gummer: These are drafting amendments.
          Mr. Tony Banks: I ask the Minister to give us some more detail to clarify Government amendment No. 18.
          Mr. Gummer: Government amendment No. 18 is purely a drafting amendment. It introduces references to the long title to cover provisions that are consequential to parts I and II of the Housing Act 1988. When a house has been acquired or appropriated by a local authority for planning purposes, section 130 provides that the security that is given by the Rent Act to a tenancy of that property does not stop the local authority from obtaining possession.
          Mr. Banks: Why parts I and II only of the Housing Act 1988? Why not the whole of the Act?
          Mr. Gummer: Because the amendment is more appropriate to parts I and II.
          Amendments made: No. 59, in page 191, line 6, at end insert—
          'The Military Lands Act 1892
          In section 8 of the Military Lands Act 1892 (provisions as to disbandment of volunteer corps etc.) subsection (3) shall be omitted.
          The Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908
          In section 52 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 (borrowing powers and expenses) subsection (3) shall be omitted.'.
          No. 13 in page 191, line 21, at end insert—
          'The Leasehold Reform Act 1967
          In section 16 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (exclusion of further rights after extension of lease) after subsection (1A) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
          "(1B) A tenancy extended under section 14 above shall not be an assured tenancy or an assured agricultural occupancy, within the meaning of Part I of the Housing Act 1988, and Schedule 9 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 shall not apply to a tenancy so extended."'.
          No. 66, in page 191, line 24, leave out from 'immunities)' to 'The' in line 25 and insert—
          `after paragraph 9A there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
          "9B'.
          No. 166, in page 191, line 37, leave out from beginning to `(scope' and insert—`
          '5.—(1) In section 130 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (displacement of persons from land acquired or appropriated) in subsection (3) after the words "nothing in" there shall be inserted "Part I of the Housing Act 1988 or".
          (2) In section 192 of that Act'.
          No. 116, in page 192, line 19, at end insert—
          '() In sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 41 of Schedule 12 to that Act (recording the minutes of meetings of local authorities), for the word "following" there shall be substituted "suitable"; and after sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
          "(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above the next suitable meeting of a local authority is their next following meeting or, where standing orders made by the authority in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 provide for another meeting of the authority to be regarded as suitable, either the next following meeting or that other meeting.".'.
          No. 229, in page 192, line 25, at end insert—
          'Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973
          In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 7 of Schedule 7 to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (recording the minutes of meetings of local authorities) for the word "following" there shall be substituted the word "suitable"; and after sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—`
          "(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above, the next suitable meeting of a local authority is their next following meeting or, where standing orders made by the authority in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 provide for another meeting of the authority I o be regarded as suitable, either the next following meeting or that other meeting.".'.
          No. 120, in page 192, line 26, at end insert—
          ' .In section 23(4) of the Local Government Act 1974 (consultation in appointing Local Commissioners), for the words "appropriate representative body," there shall be substituted the words "such persons as appear to the Secretary of State to represent authorities in England or, as the case may be, authorities in Wales to which this Part of this Act applies".
          .In section 23(12) of the Local Government Act 1974 (triennial reports to Part III authorities) the words "(through the appropriate representative body designated under section 24 below)" shall be omitted and at the end there shall be inserted the words "and shall send copies of those recommendations or conclusions to the representative persons and authorities concerned".'.
          No. 158, in page 193, line 17, leave out from beginning to '(local' in line 18 and insert—
          `15. —(1) In section 33 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (restoration or continuation of supply of water, gas or electricity) in subsection (4) for the word "and", where it first occurs, there shall be substituted "the sum so recoverable, together with any interest accrued due, shall, until recovered, he a charge on the premises concerned and if' and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
          "(4A) A charge under subsection (4) above takes effect from the date when the council makes the payment referred to in that subsection and, for the purposes of enforcing a charge,—

          (a) the council shall have the same powers and remedies, under the Law of Property Act 1925 and otherwise, as if it were a mortgagee by deed having powers of sale and lease, of accepting surrenders of leases and, subject to paragraph (b) below of appointing a receiver; and

          (b) the power to appoint a receiver shall be exercisable at any time after the expiry of one month from the date when the charge takes effect."

          15A. In section 40 of that Act.'.
          No. 14, in page 193, line 21, at end insert—
          'The Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976
          In section 33 of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (suspension of condition attached to planning permission), in subsection (2) after the words "let on or subject to" there shall be inserted "an assured agricultural occupancy, within the meaning of Chapter III of Part I of the Housing Act 1988, or".'.
          No. 49, in page 195, line 17, at end insert 'and in this sub-paragraph "year" has the same meaning as in Part XIII of that Act (general financial provisions)'.
          No. 312, in page 197, line 9, at end insert—
          `The Local Government Act 1988
          In section 25 of the Local Government Act 1988 (consent required for provision of financial assistance etc.) in subsection (1)(b) after the word "power" there shall be inserted "(whether conferred before or after the passing of this Act)".'.
          No. 313, in page 197, line 10, leave out 'the Local Government Act 1988' and insert 'that Act'.
          No. 327, in page 198, line 40, leave out from beginning to '(assistance' and insert—
          '(1) In section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (recovery of possession on expiry or termination of assured shorthold tenancy), in subsection (1)(a) for the words "a statutory periodic tenancy" there shall be substituted "an assured shorthold periodic tenancy (whether statutory or not)".
          (2) In section 129(5)(b) of that Act'.
          No. 15, in page 198, line 43, at end insert—
          'In Schedule 6 to that Act, in paragraph 9 (amendments of section 15 of Housing Associations Act 1985), in sub-paragraph (2) for "(3)" there shall be substituted "(2A)".'
          No. 105, in page 198, line 43, at end insert—
          'In Schedule 5 to that Act (Housing for Wales), in paragraph 5 (remuneration and allowances), in sub-paragraph (1)—

          (a) for the words "Secretary of State" there shall be substituted "Corporation"; and

          (b) for the word "he" there shall be substituted "Secretary of State".'—[Mr. Gummer.]

        SCHEDULE 11

          ENACTMENTS REPEALED
          Amendments made: No. 99, in page 199, line 7, at end insert—

          '45 and 46 Vict. c.50.

          The Municipal Corporations Act 1882.

          In Part I of Schedule 9, the entry relating to the Local Loans Act 1875.'

          No. 100, in page 199, line 9, at end insert—

          '51 & 52 Vict. c.25.

          The Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1888.

          In section 54, subsections (3) and (4).

          55 & 56 Vict. c.43.

          The Military Lands Act 1892.

          Section 8(3)

          8 Edw. 7 c.36

          The Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908.

          Section 52(3).'

          No. 101, in page 199, line 13, at end insert—

          '11 & 12 Geo. 6 c.26.

          The Local Government Act 1948.

          In section 125(2)(d), the words from "section thirty" to "Act) or".'

          No. 102, in page 199, line 33, column 3, at end insert—
          'Section 123(6).'
          No. 103, in page 200, line 2, column 3, at end insert—
          'In section 74(5), the words from "(including" to "1875)".'
          No. 104, in page 200, line 31, column 3, at beginning insert—
          'In section 14(4), the words from "section 34" to "1875 and".'
          No. 109, in page 200, line 47, column 3, at beginning insert—
          'Section 29(5)(a).'.
          No. 263, in page 202, line 6, column 3, at end insert—
          'section 110A(2).'.
          No. 269, in page 202, line 6, column 3, at end insert—
          1092
          'In section 111(1), paragraphs (a), (b) and (d).'.
          No. 121, in page 202, line 14, column 3, at beginning insert—
          'In section 23, in subsections (4), (5) and (6) the word "Local" and in subsection (12), the words "(through the appropriate representative body designated under section 24 below)"'
          Section 24.'.
          No. 122, in page 202, line 16, column 3, at end insert—
          'In section 34(1), the definition of "representative body".'.
          No. 36, in page 204, line 5, column 3, at end insert—
          'In section 567, in subsection (4), paragraph (c) except for the final "or", in subsection (5), the words "regulations under subsection (4) (c) or" and subsection (6).'.
          No. 41, in page 204, line 5, column 3, leave out '526' and insert—
          '522.
          Sections 524 to 526.'.
          No. 279, in page 204, line 49, column 3, leave out 'Section 20' and insert—
          'Section 15.
          Section 20.
          Schedule 3'.
          No. 268, in page 204, line 52, at end insert—

          '1987 c. 47.

          The Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987.

          In Schedule 1, paragraph 28(a)(ii) and (iii)'.

          No. 264, in page 205, line 18, column 3, at end insert—
          'section 128(2).'.
          No. 265, in page 205, line 27, column 3, at end insert—
          'In Schedule 12, paragraph 16.'.
          No. 273, in page 205, line 27, column 3, at end insert—
          'In Schedule 12, paragraph 37.'.
          No. 280, in page 205, line 28, column 3, at end insert—
          'Section 131.'—[Mr. Gummer.]

        Clause 154

          SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
          Amendments made: No. 223, in page 133, line 19, after `3', insert ', 9 and 10'.
          No. 127, in page 133, line 19, after '17', insert 'and (Members' interests)'.
          No. 119, in page 133, line 19, at end insert
          ,' with the exception in Part II of section [Expenses of Commissions for Local Administration]'.
          No. 243, in page 133, line 20, after 'sections', insert '126'.
          No. 266, in page 133, line 20, after 'sections', insert
          '[Scottish non-domestic rates: interim provisions]'.
          No. 270, in page 133, line 20, after 'sections', insert
          '[Scottish non-domestic rate]'.
          No. 226, in page 133, line 29, at beginning insert
          `Subject to subsection (4A) below'.
          No. 246, in page 133, line 29, after 'sections', insert '29(10)'.
          No. 267, in page 133, line 29, after 'sections', insert
          `[Scottish non-domestic rates: interim provisions]'.
          No. 271, in page 133, line 29, after 'sections', insert
          '[Scottish non-domestic rate]'.
          No. 311, in page 133, line 30, leave out `to 142' and insert '140, 142,'.
          No. 227, in page 133, line 30, leave out 'and 150 onwards' and insert
          `150, 151, 153(1), 153(4) and this section'.
          No. 228, in page 133, line 31, at end insert—
          '(4A) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (4) above, any provision of Schedule 10 or Part II of Schedule 11 to this Act which amends or repeals any provision of the following enactments does not extend to Scotland—

          (a) the Military Lands Act 1892;

          1094

          (b) the Local Authorities (Expenditure Powers) Act 1983.'.—[Mr. Gummer.]

        Title
        Amendment made: No. 18, in the title, in line 13, after `1982', insert
        `to make amendments of and consequential upon Parts I and II of the Housing Act 1988'.—[Mr. Gummer.]
        Bill to be read the Third time today, and to be printed. [Bill 159].

      POLICE OFFICERS (CENTRAL SERVICE) BILL [Lords]
      Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

      EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
      Ordered,
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10449/88 relating to revision of the Financial Regulation of 21st December 1977 and transfer of appropriations No. 18/88 described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Treasury on 2nd February 1989; and approves the Government's efforts to press for increased value for money in community expenditure.— [Mr. Chapman.]

      Water Metering Trials (Isle of Wight)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
      3.33 am
      Mr. Barry Field: I am sorry that I have detained my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State until such a late hour, but I am sure that he agrees that the fitting of 53,000 water meters in my constituency is a serious matter for my constituents.
      The week before the House adjourned for the Whitsun recess, I approached my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning about my worries about water meterimg trials on the Isle of Wight. After some discussion, both helpfully suggested that they would welcome a debate, although I doubt that they realised the hour at which it would take place. I am pleased that Mr. Speaker generously granted me a debate tonight.
      As I said to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State when I met him and his senior officials in the early part of the year, I was worried that the county council elections might lead to a serious deterioration in the presentation of the metering trials on the Isle of Wight and, sadly, my forecast has proved all too accurate. I am sure that my hon. Friend has seen the wholly opportunistic comments by the Liberal party in early-day motion 955. The fact that no member of that party is here to listen to the debate shows the seriousness with which it takes this matter.
      On 5 February 1985, almost two and a half years before my election to the House, minute No. 13 of the Isle of Wight water consultative committee said that Mr. Nicholson introduced the paper and explained the possibility of a large-scale pilot scheme on the island for metering domestic premises. Mr Leyton said that he felt that small users of water would welcome such a scheme and Mr. Garth commented that senior citizens would benefit from metering.
      I say "opportunistic" because at that time the county, borough and parliamentary seats were all Liberal-controlled. Mr. Leyton was the county's representative on that committee. He has since retired from the county council and one would travel the length and breadth of this country without meeting a nicer man, although I have never agreed with his politics.
      The minutes went on to say that the suggestion of using the island for a large-scale trial was given general support. On 30 September 1986, minute No. 9 of the same committee, albeit with some membership changes but still when the island had a Liberal Member of Parliament and a Liberal county and borough council, stated that the committee reiterated its policy that metering would be the best solution for the island.
      The House of Commons Library tells me that its records show that my predecessor Steve Ross, now Lord Ross, did not raise this matter in the House in 1985 or 1986. On 22 May this year, in the other place, he said "I agree that if water can be metered"—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Member must paraphrase.
      Mr. Field: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a very short quote.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member can use his ingenuity to paraphrase.
      Mr. Field: Lord Ross indicated that, provided that water can be adequately metered, that was the right way to proceed.
      If the noble Lord had not left the Isle of Wight and stepped out of local politics, he would have had something to say to the county council, especially its leader, about pushing the island into the largest metering trial in the country and busily trying to cover its tracks by condemning it.
      I shall put these facts behind me, for it will not serve the island's families well simply to return the fire. Indeed, my interest transcends any opportunity for political point scoring. To requote Shakespeare, methinks that a party that has encouraged a means of charging for water when it holds all the local offices but busies itself condemning that when it no longer has borough and parliamentary control "doth protest too much".
      I have some questions on behalf of my constituents to which I should like to obtain answers. First, will my hon. Friend the Minister undertake to visit the island to see the trials for himself and visit some of the households affected? Secondly, will he comment on the county council trading standards officer who in last week's county press was reported as saying:
      "it was only a matter of time before the meters became inaccurate"?
      Thirdly, will my hon. Friend comment on the county secretary's report that a number of meters submitted to the trading standards officer for initial verification have fallen outside tolerance? As the county solicitor states, this has an effect on householders who are keen to be satisfied that the new experiment on the island is conducted accurately and some people are concerned that a credibility gap is appearing. On 8 June 1988, in a circular, the then divisional manager of Southern water authority, Grainger Davies, stated that water meters would be fitted, free of charge, over the next 18 months to measure water supplied to every property on the Isle of Wight and customers would receive bills based on volume for the first time from autumn 1989. Why, then, are householders now receiving bills on a piecemeal basis as and when the meters are installed? That is causing concern and some friction within the community because those still paying on the rateable value method are, in some cases, paying less.
      Fifthly, will my hon. Friend reconfirm the undertaking given by Bill Courtney, the chairman of Southern Water, to hon. Members representing constituencies in the Southern Water region during a meeting in one of the Committee Rooms of the House following my question:
      "The price of water throughout the company's area will not be subject to cost centre accounting by division?"
      As my hon. Friend is aware, more than 24 per cent. of the island's water is imported from the mainland. I doubt whether any of us could afford the true cost of drinking water on the island. My hon. Friend gave me an undertaking on the cost of meter installations in his letter of 13 January 1989 and I am looking for a similar undertaking on the cost of water.
      Sixthly, will my hon. Friend set out the mechanism to monitor the total income obtained by Southern Water from the trial? Who will adjust the price if too much has been collected? It must be borne in mind that in some areas more than 25 per cent. of domestic dwellings are holiday homes. How is that loss of revenue to be made up without

      1097
      causing financial hardship to those who pay all the year round—if, indeed, that is the result of the data on the meter trial?
      Seventhly, my hon. Friend stated in his letter of 4 October 1988:
      "For those families in receipt of income support this payment does not include specific provision for individual amounts payable as was the case under the supplementary benefit."
      It is clear that if metered water is more expensive, especially for large young families in low rated property in receipt of income support, that will put them in an unfair position compared with the remainder of the country.
      Eighthly, as my hon. Friend knows, the island is to have 30,000 meters fitted externally and 23,000 internally. He knows that I have waged a long campaign to have internal metering dropped now that about 6,000 have been fitted. The whole point of the trial was to determine the cost savings of installing internal meters. There are none; in every area in the country there are none. Why, then, do we have to plough on with that regardless, despite the disruption it causes to householders, their kitchens and the possibility of damage to their effects?
      When I wrote to the Home Office about the crime prevention aspects of internal metering with the aim of cutting the number of people required to enter homes to read meters, the Home Office said that I had no reason to worry because, as they were not slot meters, there would be no coins to attract burglars. I wonder what sort of ivory tower would think that we would have to insert 5p for two baths, a shower and a cuppa.
      Lest it should be felt that metering on the Isle of Wight has been a story of unprecedented point scoring, I want to pay a special tribute to the county architect who, as a result of his representations to me as early as September 1987 after the original announcement, can take full credit for the reduction of the standing charge to £10 per annum. It is a remarkable indictment of those Liberals who recently waged such as campaign about the cost of metered water that they failed to comment on the draft charges sent to them by Southern Water with its letter of 8 September 1988.
      My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government visited the Isle of Wight, which has the highest percentage of any county in England and Wales of over-75-years-olds living in their own homes. When my right hon. Friend was asked his views about charging for water in cubic metres, he said that he would not recognise a cubic metre if he tripped over one—I checked with him whether he was content for me to mention that in this debate, so my hon. Friend need not worry—but neither would I or literally thousands of my constituents. Pints, yes; gallons, perhaps; but cubic metres, never.
      More questions need to be answered and much more needs to be done. For 53,000 home owners, water metering trials on the Isle of Wight raise genuine concerns. I look to my hon. Friend the Minister for assistance and clarity in response to the questions that I have asked. I hope that he will accede to my request to visit the island and see the meters for himself. In the past he has been most generous with his time when, wearing his other hat as Minister for Sport, he accepted our invitation to the south coast rowing championships on the Isle of Wight. I hope to have an opportunity in the near future of acquainting him with the problems in my constituency so that he can see them for himself.
      3.45 am
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) is to be congratulated on raising the water metering trial on the Isle of Wight. He has assiduously represented the views of his constituents on the issue through correspondence, direct representation to myself and other Ministers and parliamentary interventions.
      The metering trial is one of 12 areas chosen by the water industry around the country. The overall objective of the trials is to obtain information on how to implement effective metering systems and to determine the impact of charging by volume on consumption. They are not intended to show whether metering would be more or less efficient than other non-metering charging systems.
      My hon. Friend has asked many questions. Those that I am unable to answer tonight, I undertake to answer in full when I accept his offer to visit the Isle of Wight to consider the problems that he has mentioned and the water metering trial. I shall do so as soon as practicable, but certainly this summer.
      As the House will be aware, water charges payable by most domestic customers at present are based on the rateable value of the property. With the abolition of domestic rateable values next year on the introduction of the community charge, new methods of charging need to be found. Metering is one option; another is a flat-rate charge. However, the final decision will rest with each of the privatised water companies. Information gained from the trials will help each company decide whether widespread metering is worthwhile and, if so, how best to go about it with the least inconvenience and at minimum cost to their customers.
      The metering trials were set up last year under provisions in the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act 1988. Each metering trial charges scheme had to be approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under the provisions of the Act. It is worth noting that, as part of the process of considering whether to approve each scheme, my right hon. Friend was required by the Act to have regard to the interests of the customers likely to be affected by the scheme, and a number of other matters, which include the methods and principles on which the tariff was fixed; the reasons for selecting the trial area; the period of the trial; consultation about the proposals; the handling of representations about the trial; and the supply of information to him about the operation of the trial.
      As a result of the latter, my Department receives regular reports of progress on each trial and summaries of customer complaints and comments. This monitoring procedure will help my right hon. Friend to ensure that the water undertakers involved in the trials do what they promised to in their original submissions. If the monitoring process shows that the assumptions on which the tariffs were fixed are subsequently proven to be widely out, my right hon. Friend will encourage the water undertakers involved to amend their schemes.
      The Isle of Wight trial is the only large-scale trial among the programme of 12 trials announced by the industry. It was chosen by the water industry because it was self-contained, was known to have water-resource problems and contained a wide mix of different types of property in rural and urban areas. The wide mix of

      1099
      properties was a particularly important consideration, as the main objective of the large-scale trial is to establish the practicality, economics and cost of metering on a wide-scale in other areas of England and Wales. The housing had to be represenative if the lessons were to be applied elsewhere.
      Within that general objective, the Isle of Wight trial is designed to investigate the advantages of internal versus external metering, and the use of a rising-block tariff. Those objectives contrast with those of the 11 small-scale trials which are designed primarily to assess the impact on demand of various different types of tariffs in tightly controlled areas of similar housing. The results of all of the trials will be made freely available to all of the water industry, including those companies and authorities that are not directly involved. In recognition of that, my Department is contributing up to 50 per cent. of the cost.
      My hon. Friend has expressed concern that some of his constituents will face increased bills as a result of being metered. That is an inevitable consequence of the inequity of the present rateable value-based charging system and a move to a fairer system of charging linked to the volume of water supplied to customers. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that the metered tariff to be applied on the Isle of Wight is fair. It contains a number of safeguards designed to protect the interests of customers. Some of those safeguards are worth repeating.
      The tariff for the trial area was initially based on regional costs and consumption figures. As such, it did not reflect the additional costs, such as the installation of meters and the processing of data, attributable to the trial. Furthermore, as the average domestic rateable value on the island is lower than that for the whole of Southern Water's area of supply, the tariff was reduced so that the level of income to be recovered from customers on the island did not exceed the income that would otherwise be recovered through regional rateable value-based charges. Southern Water's calculations were based on an average regional consumption figure of 45 cu m per person across the entire region, or about 121 cu m per year for a typical household of 2·5 people on the island. Both those factors favour customers on the Isle of Wight, where average occupancy and rateable value is below the regional average.
      As a further safeguard, Southern Water assured my right hon. Friend when he approved its scheme that if consumption in a normal year was found to be above that forecast and income was to rise above the estimate, the tariff for the following years would be adjusted to take that into account. However, the tariff would not be adjusted if income rose from increased consumption caused by abnormally dry weather conditions. That was because consumption in subsequent normal years would revert to lower levels and Southern Water would then suffer an income loss. As I mentioned earlier, my right hon. Friend will monitor all aspects of the trial, including income recovered, and if necessary, the tariff will be adjusted.
      Another safeguard is provided by the fact that any future increase in the trial area tariff will be linked to changes in the regional tariff, so if consumption is less than forecast, Southern Water will not be able to increase the tariff to make up the loss. Once again, that is to the advantage of customers.
      1100
      As I have already mentioned, customers will be charged for water on the basis of a rising block tariff. Southern Water's lower tariff rate for this year is 30p per cu m for the first 90 cu m of water per year. Consumption above 90 cu m will be charged at 56·5p per cu m. The preferential allowance of 90 cu m represents Southern Water's estimate of the essential water requirements for a typical household of three people. Those essential requirements include water used for food preparation, drinking, hand washing, manual dishwashing, toilet flushing, automatic washing machine use and daily bath or shower. That is a wide interpretation of what constitutes essential use and refutes the suggestions that metering will lead to a decline in health standards.
      It is too early to judge how many customers will pay more and how many less. Customers have been paying by measure only for two months and the first bills will not be sent out to customers until the end of September. However, a sample of 1,000 readings taken by Southern Water suggests that the average yearly bill will be around £120. On that basis, Southern Water expects that about 50 per cent. of customers will be paying less than £120 and 90 per cent. paying less than £200 per year. It is encouraging to note that the likely annual charges based on those sample readings are in line with the estimated annual charges that Southern Water set out in its information leaflet which it sent to customers last year. However, I heard what my hon. Friend said earlier, which would appear to vary from the information I have received. I give him an undertaking, therefore, to respond to that point specifically in writing in the very near future.
      The trial is being managed on a day-to-day basis by a full-time project manager. He is supported by a large team of technical and supervising staff. The management team's close day-to-day supervision of the contractors has ensured that the equality of work has generally been of a high standard. So far, Southern Water has received only around 50 complaints about poor reinstatement. Of those 34 were for damage to carpets, wallpaper and paintwork when an internal meter was installed, and the remainder related to the level of the meter box lid where the meter was installed in the pavement. Those were all put right by the contractor. Only 10 claims for compensation have been made. Those have been for damage to boundary walls and for grit in taps. All have been resolved.
      With over 9,000 external installations and 3,000 internal installations completed so far, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the number of complaints about poor reinstatement and the number of claims for compensation are very small in comparison.
      My hon. Friend raised the important issue of internal and external meters. As I have already mentioned, one of the objectives of the Isle of Wight trial is to compare, on a large scale, the costs and benefits of internal and external meter locations. To do that, Southern Water is installing external meters in properties on the more urban, eastern side of the island, whereas those on the more rural western side will have internal meters. Once again, that will generally be to the benefit of customers, as properties in rural areas tend to have longer underground supply pipes and hence are more prone to leakage. Water lost through leakage on supply pipes will not be recorded by internal meters, and customers will therefore not pay for it.
      Customers in the trial areas who suspect that they have a leak on their supply pipe can ask their water undertaker to carry out a confidence check of the plumbing system

      1101
      and the accuracy of the meter. This is a service for which customers will not be charged. In addition, we have also agreed with the water industry a code of practice which provides important safeguards for all metered domestic customers where their supply pipe develops an unidentified leak. Essentially, the code provides for water undertakers to reassess metered charges on the basis of past normal consumption when an unidentified leak is located. This reassessment of charges will be a one-off concession and will be conditional on the customer carrying out remedial work within a reasonable period. The code will be one of the licence conditions.
      While on the issue of the accuracy of meters, I would like to stress that all meters used in the trials—and generally for domestic purposes since 1 April 1989—have to comply with regulations under the Weights and Measures Act 1986 governing their accuracy and in-service performance. However, as part of the trials, a random sample of meters will be removed at various intervals during the trials and subjected to a detailed accuracy assesment on a test rig. This will provide the industry with further information about the in-service performance of meters to compare with that already done in the laboratory by the water research centre. That research indicated that, in normal conditions, water meters will sustain their accuracy for many years.
      I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the problems that can arise for customers when meters are installed indoors. In such cases, the normal location for a meter would be under the kitchen sink alongside the stoptap. However, in some properties, it has been necessary to install the meter in airing cupboards and in bedrooms. This can cause installation problems, difficulties for the meter reader and privacy problems for customers.
      Nevertheless, we should not lose sight of the fact that one of the main purposes of the trials is to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of internal metering. I am sure that the House would agree that it would defeat the purpose of the trials if water undertakers took the easy option every time a problem came along.
      We should not forget that internal metering does have a number of advantages for the customer. These include the fact that customers do not have to pay for water lost through repeated leaks on underground supply pipes; it is easier for customers to read the meter; and it is cheaper for water undertakers to install internal meters. The cost is currently averaging £82, whereas for straight forward installations of external meters the average cost is £164. Bearing in mind the fact that about 25 per cent. of customers have so far been identified as having joint supplies, and with the average cost of separation running at £380, the overall cost of installing all external meters is around £260.
      It is too early to say whether the obvious disadvantages of internal metering—for example, the problem of gaining access to install and read the meter—outweigh the advantage of generally lower installation costs. That said, let us not forget that most electricity and gas meters are installed internally.
      My hon. Friend has previously expressed concern that internal meters could lead to bogus workmen and officials gaining access to customers' properties. He raised this important crime prevention point with my hon. Friend the Minister of State Home Office, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten). The House will
      1102
      be pleased to know that Southern Water, in common with all water undertakers involved in the trials, has taken action to ensure that customers, especially the elderly, would not be at risk from bogus workmen or officials.
      All employees and contractors requiring access to customers' property have been issued with photopasses. These must be clearly displayed before entering a property. Southern Water has also set up a freephone service to enable any householder to check the authenticity of callers. Even so, not enough people ask to see proof of identity before allowing workmen to enter their homes. In all cases, Southern Water gives advance notice of visits requiring internal access. In addition, all contractors have been asked to give assurances that the workmen engaged on the trials do not have a criminal record.
      Because of the size of the Isle of Wight trial, the installation phase will not be complete until April next year. However, customers are being charged on a measured basis from 1 April this year and as meters are installed. Those customers who have paid their rateable value-based charges in advance will receive a rebate for the period when charging by volume commenced.
      Meter reading and billing will be every six months, with the first bills being sent out in early October. My hon. Friend suggested that metered billing should be delayed until all customers on the island are metered. Although I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern that all his constituents should be treated equally, such a proposition may not be a practical option with a programme of large-scale metering. For example, if Southern Water decided to meter all its supply area over a 20-year period, it clearly would not wait until the completion of the programme before starting metered billing. All that it would do would be to increase the cost of the exercise and frustrate those customers who are keen to start paying by measure.
      My hon. Friend asked about income support. He will be aware that income support does not include separate provision for individual amounts payable, as was the case under supplementary benefit. Instead, when setting the benefit rates, account was taken of the overall amount spent in supplementary benefit on water charges. We feel that, as water charges are among the many elements of a claimant's basic commitments where expenditure varies, there is no reason to make special provision for them to be met separately. Income support claimants are now responsible for paying their charges themselves out of their weekly benefit.
      The purpose of income support is to provide help for people whose income, from all sources, is below a minimum level. Benefit is therefore payable on the basis of need. The main components of a person's requirements are the personal allowances and, if appropriate, the premiums. I am certain that my hon. Friend does not want to use our time this evening to discuss the merits or otherwise of individual claims. However, I give him an undertaking that, if he is concerned about specific cases, and if he will write to me with full details, I will ensure that his concerns are answered.
      What I can do, very briefly, is give an indication of the level of income support that a typical family could receive. For that purpose, if we consider a typical family to be one with two parents and three children under 11, the parents would initially be entitled to £54·80 per week in income support, and could claim a further £41·75 per week in child benefit—a total of £96·55. However, child benefit would be

      1103
      considered as part of a reduction in the level of income support paid to the family. The net effect would be that the family would receive benefits totalling £74·80 per week. Such a family could expect to use between 200 and 250 cu m of water a year, which equates to a charge of about £4 to £5 per week.
      Clearly, as the trials are still at an early stage, it would be wrong to make any formal impression or draw any firm conclusions about the trials at this particular time. Information is being collected and will continue to be collected on all aspects of the trials. It will be made widely available in a series of reports by the water industry.
      The Isle of Wight trial is the one trial that has attracted most attention because of its size and importance to the metering trial programme. It also affects a large number of people. However, I am sure that the House is now far wiser
      1104
      about the developments of the Isle of Wight trial, as well as the other trial areas, from the interesting debate we have had tonight and from the continued excellent and perceptive contribution made by my hon. Friend on this subject. I again congratulate him on bringing this subject to the attention of the House.
      The question of the metering trial is usually one of the matters raised by my hon. Friend when we meet, and I probably know more about the trial on the Isle of Wight than about any of the other trial areas. I am also pleased to reiterate that I shall have an opportunity to look at the trial area with my hon. Friend during a visit to the island shortly.
      Once again I say to my hon. Friend that I am grateful for his invitation. I apologise for the swiftness of my reply, but that has only been because my hon. Friend has been as assiduous as ever in raising so many subjects.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Four o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fraud
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps have now been taken to prevent fraud in intervention stocks and export refunds following the latest Court of Auditors report.

  Mr. MacGregor
  As my hon. Friend knows, I have been taking the initiative in the Council of Ministers on many occasions to press for further action to deal with fraud in the common agricultural policy. I am glad to say that the Commission has undertaken to present to Council later this month a report on follow-up action to the recent Court of Auditors report. This will include a proposal to require member states to carry out an annual check on intervention stocks, to ensure that actual quantities present tally with storekeepers' accounts, and a revised proposal on monitoring export refunds, which would require member states to carry out a minimum level of controls. I will again be pressing Council to take speedy action on these proposals. The Commission has also this month introduced a simplification of the system for beef export refunds designed to reduce opportunities for fraud.

  Potato Marketing Board
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the future of the Potato Marketing Board.

  Mr. Ryder
  I am still considering this.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to oppose any European Economic Community proposals to impose headage limitations on its contributions to hill livestock compensatory allowances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The European Commission has recently made proposals for amendments to the EC legislation governing hill livestock compensatory allowances, as part of a package relating to reform of the structural funds. The proposals are currently being studied. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall be seeking to preserve the United Kingdom interests in the forthcoming negotiations. In particular, I remain firmly opposed to the principle of ceilings based on farm size and other measures which would discriminate against the United Kingdom.

  Confusion Marks
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what have been for each of the last five years, the administration costs of maintaining a register of 410
  confusion marks for the purposes of the sheep variable premium scheme; and how many animals were so registered in each of these years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding reply 13 June 1989]: The cost of administering the confusion mark procedures are not separately recorded. Nor are the number of animals registered under the system noted centrally. Those figures could be extracted only at disproportionate cost.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many meetings he has had so far in the current year with representatives of the fishing industry in the United Kingdom; and what has been discussed.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding reply 12 June 1989]: I am regularly in touch with the fishing industry. This year I met industry representatives when I visited Hastings and Newhaven on 1 February, the Fish Council in Brussels on 23 February, Billingsgate on 21 March, the Fishing '89 exhibition in Glasgow on 14 April and at the National Federation of Fisheries Organisations' annual general meeting on 10 June. I have discussed a wide range of issues, of both local and national interest, including total allowable catches, vessel licensing, enforcement, management of the Channel cod fishery, quota hopping, beam trawl restrictions, decommissioning, SFIA grants, structure of the fleet and light dues.

TRANSPORT

  Bridge Design (East London River Crossing)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newham, South, on 23 March,Official Report, columns 708–9, on the studies of bridge design for the proposed east London river crossing, he will state the date when the consultant's report was, or is expected to be received; and if he will make a statement covering its conclusion.

  Mr. Channon
  I have nothing to add to my reply of 23 March to the hon. Member.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire, on 12 May,Official Report, column 548, he can indicate when he will announce his decision following the public inquiry held in May 1988 on his Department's proposals for the Birmingham northern relief road.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend announced on 22 May his intention to arrange a competition relating to the design, financing and construction of a new highway which would serve broadly the same purpose as the proposed Birmingham northern relief road. A decision on the Department's proposals for BNRR will be made when the outcome of the competition is known.

  Davenham Bypass
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to commence on the Davenham bypass.
  411
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This is a Cheshire county council proposal. I understand that it hopes to start work in 1992.

  M66/A664 Interchange
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about his new draft order for the M66 line order at the M66/A664 interchange; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We expect to publish a connecting roads order for the M66/A664 junction next year. A period will be allowed for objection and comment.

  Semtex (Testing Kits)
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department has on the availability of explosive testing kits capable of detecting Semtex; and what steps he has taken to acquire these kits for United Kingdom airports or to recommend them to their operators.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department has a programme for testing—and, where appropriate, assisting with the development of—equipment designed to detect explosives hidden in items carried on aircraft. Several techniques and individual items of equipment have shown promising results in the laboratory, but we have not yet found any system which will perform satisfactorily under operational conditions at airports.

  M11 and M25
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will indicate his estimates of repairs and maintenance for each of the M11 and M25 for each of the next five years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The need for repairs and maintenance of motorways is reviewed each year in the light of condition surveys. Major maintenance work for the M11 and M25 has been planned for 1989–90, as follows:

  Location

  Works

  Cost £ million

  M11

  Junctions 12–14

  Overlay

  1·0

  South of Junction 5 (Northbound)

  Overlay

  2·6

  South of Junction 5 (Southbound)

  Overlay

  2·9

  North of Junction 5 (Northbound)

  Overlay

  1·3

  North of Junction 5 (Southbound)

  Overlay

  1·2

  Total cost

  9·0

  M25

  Junction 24

  Reconstruction

  2·9

  Junctions 11–13

  Reconstruction

  0·9

  Total cost

  3·8

  Heavy Lorries
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his route signing in London proposals for change will fully allow for a London-made heavy lorry ban to be enforced; and if he will make a statement.
  412
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The review of signing in London relates to directional signs on the primary route network. Drivers need simple and logical direction signing if they are to reach unfamiliar destinations safely and quickly. It would not be appropriate to include detailed information on lorry restrictions on such signs.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if full compensation will be paid to local authorities for strengthening of bridges and roads in their areas should 40-tonne lorries be allowed on British roads.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is for highway authorities to maintain to the appropriate standards the bridges for which they are responsible. The provision of resources for this is considered in the annual public expenditure round. We shall shortly be discussing with local authority associations the implications of the recent decision that the United Kingdom's derogation from the EC lorry weights will end on 31 December 1998.

  Tow-away Zones (London)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies have been made by his Department into the introduction of tow-away zones in selected areas in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Metropolitan police have powers throughout London to remove any illegally parked vehicle. It is for them to decide how these powers are exercised. The Department has commissioned studies of the effects of vehicle removal in parts of central London as one method of parking enforcement. The studies are not yet complete.

  Level Crossings
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many deaths and injuries there have been at level crossings, by type of crossing in Great Britain in each of the last five years; whether there are any limits on the speed of trains at each such type of level crossing; and how many of the incidents in each year resulting in death and injury involved collision with road vehicles.

  Mr. Portillo
  Table A shows the number of deaths and injuries from accidents at level crossings, by type of crossing, in Great Britain during the period 1984–88. Table B shows the number of incidents involving death and/or injury during those years which resulted from collision between rail and road vehicles. The Department's published requirements for level crossings prescribe limits for train speeds at open, automatic open and automatic half-barrier crossings. The criteria for automatic open crossings have been revised following a review of safety at these crossings by Professor P. F. Stott after the accident at Lockington level crossing on 26 July 1986.
  413

  Table A: Deaths and injuries in level cossing accidents

  Crossing type

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  11988

  Deaths

  Injuries

  Deaths

  Injuries

  Deaths

  Injuries

  Deaths

  Injuries

  Deaths

  Injuries

  Manned Gates

  —

  3

  3

  3

  —

  4

  —

  —

  1

  5

  Manned Barriers

  —

  7

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  6

  Manned Barriers with CCTV

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  Automatic Half-barriers

  3

  4

  3

  11

  5

  4

  2

  1

  5

  4

  Automatic Open (locally monitored)

  1

  8

  2

  12

  —

  9

  5

  9

  1

  9

  Automatic Open (remotely controlled)

  —

  1

  —

  3

  11

  38

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Open Crossing

  —

  4

  —

  1

  —

  10

  —

  6

  —

  —

  User-Worked Crossing

  4

  9

  3

  9

  9

  6

  —

  6

  3

  8

  User-Worked Crossing with miniature warning lights

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Footpath

  3

  2

  2

  1

  2

  5

  5

  —

  5

  3

  Total

  11

  39

  14

  40

  27

  78

  14

  24

  18

  49

  Table B: Incidents involving deaths and injuries resulting from collisions at level crossings

  Year

  Number

  1984

  18

  1985

  24

  1986

  24

  1987

  26

  19881

  25

  1 Provision

  Roads (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will specify the proposed route of the new motorway from the M25 to Chelmsford as announced in the White paper "Roads for Prosperity."

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The first step is for the Department to appoint design agents to investigate possible schemes. Only then shall we have an indication of practicable routes.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what timetable he envisages for the building of the new motorway from the M25 to Chelmsford as announced in the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity";

  (2) what timetable he envisages for the widening of the Chelmsford A 12 by-pass following publication of the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity."

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We shall seek to complete work on these schemes as quickly as possible. Details about timetable will be contained in a roads report to be issued later in the year.

WALES

  Iwan Edgar (Letters)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the Transport Policy Division of the Welsh Office received letters from county councillor Iwan Edgar, of Pwllheli, dated 21 November 1988, 2 February 1989, and 10 April 1989, and on what dates each of these letters was answered.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I regret that due to an error a reply to the first letter was not sent. The subsequent letters were repeats of the first letter. A reply has now been sent.

  Drinking Water
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of which of the standards set in the European Community drinking water directive are regularly exceeded by each of the water supplies in Wales which have been granted derogations.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is as follows.

  The Welsh water authority has been granted derogations under the terms of article 9 of the EC drinking water directive (80/778/EEC) as listed in the following table. Information regarding the monitoring of those supplies is not held by the Department.

  Name

  Derogated parameter (1(=colour: 6.=pH unit: 15=aluminium: 3.3 = iron; 34=manganese)

  Nantybwch

  34

  Garw Levels

  33

  Strata Florida

  34

  Ystradfellte

  34

  Nantymoel

  34

  Wern Ddu

  6

  Afon Cwm-y-Llan

  l5

  Penygoyallt

  6

  Llanfynydd

  6,34

  Alwen

  1,34

  Georgetown

  6,34

  Cwmsymlog

  15

  Betws-y-coed

  34

  Garreglwyd

  33,34

  Gryn Goch

  33

  Nantmor

  5,34

  Rhyd-Ddu

  34

  Portis

  34

  Penyfan

  33

  Upper Wenallt Springs

  33

  Cwm Cegr Springs

  33

  Llanbedr Springs

  33

  Caerau

  34

  Llan Penmachno

  15,34

  Crai Reservoir

  34

  Croesor

  34

  Rhyd

  15, 33, 34

  Rhydyroncn

  33

  Tir-Gawen

  33

  Elan

  1, 6, 33, 34

  Pendinas

  34

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Purity
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last discussed with a member of the European Commission the question of British compliance with European Community directives on water purity.

  Mr. Howard
  Last month my noble Friend, the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside satisfactorily concluded discussions with the Commission on the enforcement provisions in the Water Bill. A copy of a letter from Commissioner Ripa confirming this was placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has responded to the reasoned opinion of 14 April about the failure of the United Kingdom to transpose and its failure to apply correctly Council directive 80/778/EC on the quality of drinking water.

  Mr. Howard
  A response will be made to the Commission this week.

  Planning Appeals (Windsor and Maidenhead)
  Mr. Andrew McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of planning appeals in the Royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead he has approved in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is in the table.

  Year

  Appeals decided

  Appeals allowed

  Percentage allowed

  1984–85

  90

  28

  31·1

  1985–86

  85

  44

  51·8

  1986–87

  109

  54

  49·5

  1987–88

  149

  80

  53·7

  1988–89

  130

  55

  42·3

  Wargrave Sewage Works
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make it his policy to take into account the results of the investment being made before considering a relaxation of consent levels at the Wargrave sewage works;

  (2) what the discharge levels will be from the Wargrave sewage works when the current round of investment is completed in November;

  (3) what were the consent levels for discharges from the Wargrave sewage works in (a) 1980 and (b)

  Mr. Howard
  The consent levels for the works for 1980 and from 1983 up to the present time are set out in milligrammes per litre.

  Suspended Solids

  Biochemical Oxygen Demand

  Ammonical Nitrogen

  1980

  30

  15

  5

  1983 to date

  45

  18

  15

  The authority has recently undertaken some remedial work at Wargrave and is proposing to undertake further
  416
  improvements as part of its major programme for upgrading sewage treatment works. In connection with this, the authority has submitted an application for a time-limited consent in accordance with the arrangements set out in my announcement on 7 December 1988 at column 199—to cover the period up to completion of the works. This is being considered by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution who will take into account all relevant factors, including the effects of previous investment together with any representations which are received, before reaching a decision.

  Cemetery Clauses Act 1847
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to amend the Cemetery Clauses Act 1847 to require local authorities to give details of the number of burial spaces available in each grave sold by the authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None, as the Cemetery Clauses Act 1847 no longer applies to local authority cemeteries. A complete code of administration for local authority cemeteries is now provided by the Local Authorities Cemeteries Order 1977 (SI 1977 No. 204) as amended.

  Sewage Treatment Works
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Copeland of 11 May,Official Report, column 520, if he will place in the Library an analysis of those sewage treatment works in respect of which applications have been made for revised sewage discharge consents, showing for each works (a) its eight-figure national grid reference, (b) the parliamentary constituency in which it is situated, and (c) the local authority area in which it is situated.

  Mr. Ridley
  The question can be answered only at disproportionate cost. The grid reference for each sewage treatment works is included on the application form submitted to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. These forms are available for public inspection at each water authority. The applications themselves, including grid references, have been advertised locally in the press. The other information would have to be specifically compiled and is not relevant to the consideration of the application.

  Bristol Channel (Discharges)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 6 June, if he will collate the list of consented discharges into the Bristol channel held by Wessex Water, Welsh Water and South West Water; and if he will publish these.

  Mr. Howard
  Information on discharge consents is not held by the Department in a form which would allow the identification of discharges in any particular area. Details of consents granted are, however, on the public registers maintained by the water authorities.

  New Towns (Land Disposal)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange for the new town
  417
  development corporations to make details of their land disposals available to hon. Members by placing them in the Library on a six-monthly basis.

  Mr. Trippier
  New town development corporations and the Commission for the New Towns published annual reports which contain summary information about their progress in disposing of assets. These reports are laid before the House under the New Towns Act 1981. Discussion of details of land transactions can often involve considerations of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he will introduce procedures to monitor the disposals of land by the new town development corporations.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department already monitors new town development corporation land disposals.

  Housing (Harassment)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cases of housing harassment have been reported in each of the London boroughs in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Housing Action Trusts
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his assessment of how long the tenants on the Angell Town estate will need to consider the consultants' reports on housing action trust areas; what steps he will be taking to ensure that tenants have access to the reports; and what resources will be made available to the tenants for these purposes.

  Mr. Trippier
  As my right hon. Friend announced in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) on 16 March, all residents in the proposed trust area in Lambeth have been sent copies of leaflets explaining the consultants' ideas and translations have been made available on request. We have also sent copies of the consultants' reports to tenants' associations, local libraries and advice centres, Lambeth council and to individuals on request. We hope that tenants will play a full part in discussions led by independent consultants about the proposals in the reports and that they will put forward their own ideas. How long these consultations take will depend on how the discussions develop.

  Vacant Properties
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of properties owned by his Department in Manchester, Westminster, Suffolk Coastal and the Isles of Scilly are vacant.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 6 June 1989]: As at 31 May 1989, the total number of all properties (that is, residential, office, storage and specialised) owned by the Department of the Environment in each of the four areas was:

  Total number

  Number vacant

  Percentage vacant

  Manchester

  42

  1

  2·4

  Westminster

  191

  4

  2·1

  Suffolk Coastal

  25

  2

  8·0

  Isle of Scilly

  9

  1

  11·0

  418
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of properties owned by local authorities in Manchester, Westminster, Suffolk Coastal and the Isles of Scilly are vacant.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 6 June 1989]: Based on the information provided by the authorities in their last housing investment programme returns for April 1988, the number of dwellings owned by each of the four authorities was:

  Total number

  Number vacant

  Percentage vacant

  Manchester

  98,665

  5,166

  5·2

  Westminster

  22,175

  893

  4·0

  Suffolk Coastal

  5,678

  82

  1·4

  Isles of Scilly

  141

  1

  0·7

  Returnable Bottles
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to encourage the use of standard specification returnable bottles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 12 June 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no such plans. We know of no evidence that the introduction of legislation or regulation of this nature would have significant benefit to the consumer, to trade and commerce or to the environment. However, the European Commission, in its draft amendment to the EC beverage containers directive (EC/85/339), has proposed that packagers should be required to label their beverage containers with common recyclable or refillable symbols. Discussions are continuing but, if implemented, this amendment would encourage consumers to return a greater number of bottles for refilling or recycling than happens at present.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners in Care
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what basis the personal allowance element of the pensions paid to residents(a) in local authority care or in long-term hospital beds and (b) in the private or voluntary sector is assessed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The personal allowance for hospital in-patients has been increased over the years in line with the increases in benefit rates and is now £8·70, expressed in the relevant regulations as equivalent to 20 per cent. of the basic retirement pension rate. The allowance for those in local authority accommodation is fixed at the same rate as that for hospital in-patients. In respect of residents of independent residential care and nursing homes the addition for personal expenses is £10·05. This is uprated to reflect changes in prices in the same way as other income support applicable amounts.

  Press Briefings
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines he follows in determining which journalists are invited to press briefings by his Department.
  419
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Journalists are invited to briefings on the basis of the subject to be discussed.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for his Department's local offices in Doncaster and Mexborough, what statistical information he has as to the different reasons given to applicants by social fund officers for nil awards in respect of application for community care grants.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest available information is given in my reply to the hon. Member on 26 April 1989 at column 543–45.

  Limited Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of limited appointments for each year since 1979 for each office of his Department in South Yorkshire.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table gives the number of limited period staff appointments in social security offices in South Yorkshire from May 1987 to March 1989. This is the only period during which such appointments have been made.

  Limited period appointments

  May 1987 to March 1988

  April 1988 to March 1989

  Barnsley East ILO

  13

  —

  Barnsley West ILO

  8

  —

  Doncaster East ILO

  14

  —

  Doncaster West ILO

  5

  8

  Rotherham South ILO

  26

  1

  Rotherham North ILO

  9

  1

  Sheffield North East ILO

  19

  —

  Sheffield North West ILO

  19

  —

  Sheffield South East ILO

  16

  5

  Sheffield South West ILO

  1

  —

  Wath on Dearne AO

  6

  —

  Goldthorpe NIO

  2

  —

  Mexborough NIO

  0

  —

  Total appointments

  138

  15

  Staff Training
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what training is given to the staff in South Yorkshire following the introduction of new legislation by his Department.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  When new legislation is introduced full consideration is given in advance to the training

  Staff turnover in the South Yorkshire offices

  1 April 1984 to 31 March 1985

  1 April 1985 to 31 March 1986

  1 April 1986 to 31 March 1987

  1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988

  1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989

  Office

  Number of leavers

  Percentage of complement

  Number of leavers

  Percentage of complement

  Number of leavers

  Percentage of complement

  Number of leavers

  Percentage of complement

  Number of leavers

  Percentage of complement

  Barnsley East ILO

  21

  16·41

  14·0

  10·37

  10·5

  6·52

  12·5

  8·44

  13·0

  9·42

  Barnsley West ILO

  10

  9·61

  11·0

  10·09

  15·5

  12·92

  12·5

  10·96

  10·0

  9·90

  Doncaster East ILO

  29

  20·71

  14·5

  10·00

  22·0

  12·57

  13·0

  8·44

  8·5

  6·03

  Doncaster West ILO

  41

  22·40

  23·5

  12·11

  33·5

  16·03

  22·0

  11·52

  15·0

  8·20

  Rotherham North ILO

  13

  19·12

  8·5

  11·80

  17·5

  21·60

  25·0

  35·21

  4·0

  5·55

  Rotherham South ILO

  29

  14·95

  33·0

  16·18

  24·5

  10·16

  35·0

  15·62

  22·5

  10·56

  Sheffield North East ILO

  35

  18·04

  39·5

  18·81

  42 0

  17·57

  26·0

  11·35

  33·0

  15·42

  Sheffield North West ILO

  42

  22·58

  16·0

  7·51

  44·5

  18·31

  41·5

  19·21

  31·0

  16·58

  Sheffield South East ILO

  20

  14·18

  9·5

  6·21

  31·0

  18·02

  28·5

  19·00

  22·0

  16·54

  Sheffield South West ILO

  26

  16·35

  30·0

  17·14

  33·5

  16·18

  22·0

  12·15

  20·0

  12·50

  420
  requirements of all local office staff. Where the change is considered minimal or straightforward, instructions are sent to staff as circulars or amendments to the working manuals. Where the change is more complex or fundamental, additional training and advice material is also provided. This can take a variety of forms ranging from training at a national training centre to local training at the workplace using centrally prepared training material.

  Visiting Officers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of visiting officers employed in each office of his Department in South Yorkshire from 1979 to date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We do not collect centrally information on the number of visiting officers employed on visiting work in individual offices. Staffing resources allocated for visiting in the Department's north-eastern region are estimated from available data for the following years.

  Number

  1983–84

  388

  1984–85

  517

  1985–86

  444

  1986–87

  395

  1987–88

  345

  1988–89

  244

  1989–90

  125

  The figures do not include specialist visiting or visiting from contributory benefits.

  Staff Turnover
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the turnover of staff in each year since 1979 for each office of his Department in South Yorkshire.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table lists the turnover of staff in social security offices in South Yorkshire. Turnover includes resignations, retirements, dismissals, deaths and transfers to other offices. It also includes promotions within an office. The information is expressed as a percentage of the staffing complement as at 1 April in each year. Figures are not available for periods prior to April 1984.
  421

  1 April 1984 to 31 March 1985

  1 April 1985 to 31 March 1986

  1 April 1986 to 31 March 1987

  1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988

  1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989

  Office

  Number of leavers

  Percentage of complement

  Number of leavers

  Percentage of complement

  Number of leavers

  Percentage of complement

  Number of leavers

  Percentage of complement

  Number of leavers

  Percentage of complement

  Wath on Deane AO

  15

  22·73

  12·5

  17·86

  17·0

  20·00

  13·0

  17·81

  5·0

  8·06

  Goldthorpe NIO

  2

  12·50

  3·0

  15·79

  3·5

  16·67

  3·0

  15·00

  1·0

  4·76

  Mexborough NIO

  3

  15·79

  2·0

  9·52

  1·0

  9·52

  3·0

  14·28

  3·0

  14·28

  Therese Devine
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the result of the appeal by Therese Devine, of Hargrave Green, Bury St. Edmunds, against his decision in 1986 that she was not entitled to supplementary benefit; and what steps he has taken to make the appropriate payments to her in the light of the tribunal's judgment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The local social security office have no record of an appeal being received from Therese Devine in 1986 nor was a decision issued at that time refusing her supplementary benefit. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply to his letter of 1 March and the subsequent reply from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, dated 12 April in which these matters are fully explained.

  Ilford Park Polish Home
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about the future of Ilford Park Polish home.

  Mr. Scott
  Ilford Park Polish home, located near Newton Abbot, Devon, is the last remaining resettlement camp operated by the Department under the Polish Resettlement Act 1947. Polish people who satisfy the criteria laid down in the Act can be considered for admission. The current residents occupy accommodation which mostly predates the opening of the original camp in 1948. The buildings are situated in the central part of a 42-acre site owned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  In view of the declining resident population and the age of the accommodation the Department has for some time now been considering the future of the home. The average age of the residents is increasing and some of them are becoming frail. The present home has more the characteristics of a residential care home for elderly people rather than its original function as a resettlement camp. The present accommodation, age apart, is unsuitable and does not meet the standards required today for residential care homes.

  We have therefore concluded that Ilford Park Polish home should be rebuilt at its present site. The aim is to provide accommodation and facilities that meet the standards required of registered residential care homes and nursing homes. On provisional plans the work will be complete by 1992. There will be full consultation with residents and staff, as the details of the scheme are worked out.

HEALTH

  Illegitimate Children
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in the Official Report each parliamentary constituency, together with the proportion, in which the proportion of children born outside marriage in the latest year for which figures are available exceeds 20 per cent.

  Mr. Freeman
  This statistic is routinely available for local authority districts and for health districts and is published in the annual volume "Key Population and Vital Statistics" for local and health authority areas, which is in the Library. I regret that the statistic is not normally tabulated by parliamentary constituency and so could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Genito-urinary Clinics
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases were seen at genito-urinary medicine clinics in England in each year from 1980 to the latest available year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is given in the table.

  New cases seen at NHS genito-urinary medicine clinics, England, 1980 to 1987–88

  Grand Total all conditions

  Males

  Females

  Persons

  1980

  271,614

  187,365

  458,979

  1981

  281,189

  198,735

  479,924

  1982

  296,675

  220,993

  517,668

  1983

  309,040

  238,397

  547,437

  1984

  319,483

  250,445

  569,928

  1985

  332,840

  272,466

  605,306

  1986

  349,190

  298,169

  647,359

  1987

  328,467

  291,799

  620,266

  1987–88

  310,753

  282,972

  593,725

  Source: DH fors SBH60.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what indication he has on those district health authorities which are setting as a local priority the provision of a genito-urinary clinic.

  Mr. Freeman
  In a letter sent to health authorities in February the Department advised them that, as part of the reports required under the AIDS (Control) Act 1987, details should be given of all completed and planned developments in genito-urinary medicine services. District health authorities are due to publish their reports by the end of June.

  Health Service Management Board
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each of the members of the Health Service
  423
  management board his or her experience (a) in Health Service affairs and (b) in the supply of personal services to members of the public for which there is no fee or charge.

  Mr. Mellor
  The members of the NHS policy board were chosen for their capacity to give high calibre independent advice about the strategic direction of the NHS. A significant proportion have had distinguished careers in the Health Service. Others bring a variety of experience from the business world, and an outstanding record of achievement in giving direction to very large organisations.

  Family Practitioner Committees (Chairmen)
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a list showing for each family practitioner

  Family practitioner committee

  Outgoing chairman

  Length of service

  Status

  New chairman

  Length of service

  Status

  Bedfordshire

  Mrs. W. Brothwood

  4(2)1

  Lay

  Dr. A. Wood

  —

  Lay

  Birmingham

  Dr. A. Llewellyn-Lloyd

  8

  Contractor

  Mrs. C. Vaughan-Griffiths

  —

  Lay

  Bolton

  Mrs. J. Rothwell

  4

  Contractor

  Mr. A. Pettengell

  —

  Lay

  Bury

  Dr. A. Burt

  15

  Contractor

  Mr. B. Wood

  —

  Lay

  Camden and Islington

  Mr. K. Judge

  2

  Lay

  Mr. H. C. Gilbert

  —

  Lay

  City and East London

  Mr. J. Keir

  2

  Lay

  Ms. J. Lait

  —

  Lay

  Croydon

  Mr. B. Pringle

  15

  Lay

  Mr. R. Lane

  —

  Lay

  Derbyshire

  Mr. B. Ashby

  3

  Lay

  Mr. M. Boissier

  —

  Lay

  Dorset

  Mr. B. Gillam

  5

  Lay

  Mrs. K. Mulliner

  —

  Lay

  Durham

  Mr. N. Thomas

  12

  Lay

  Mr. I. Bonas

  —

  Lay

  Enfield and Haringey

  Mr. B. Whycer

  6

  Contractor

  Vacant

  —

  —

  Greenwich and Bexley

  Mr. J. Stickland

  5

  Lay

  Mr. B. Marson-Smith

  —

  Lay

  Kingston and Richmond

  Mr. D. Lewis

  12

  Lay

  Mr. D. J. G. Banks

  —

  Lay

  Lancashire

  Mr. F. Pethybridge

  4

  Lay

  Mr. C. Jeanes

  —

  Lay

  Liverpool

  Mr. R. Clark

  5

  Lay

  Mrs. R. Hawley

  —

  Lay

  North Tyneside

  Dr. J. Gordon

  7

  Contractor

  Dr. G. Hetherington

  —

  Lay

  Nottinghamshire

  Dr. A. MacLaren

  10

  Contractor

  Mr. M. Dessau

  —

  Lay

  Oxfordshire

  Lady Williams

  12(3)1

  Lay

  Mrs. D. Levy

  —

  Lay

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  Mr. L. Bridgeman

  4

  Lay

  Vacant

  —

  —

  Sefton

  Mr. B. Worster-Davies

  10

  Lay

  Mr. C. D. Darley

  —

  Lay

  Trafford

  Dr. B. Tennant

  8

  Contractor

  Mr. A. Russell

  —

  Lay

  Walsall

  Mr. M. Wolverson

  7

  Lay

  Mr. J. Howell

  —

  Lay

  Warwickshire

  Mrs. M. Backhouse

  13

  Lay

  Mr. R. Gardner

  —

  Lay

  Wigan

  Mrs. C. Caley

  4(11)1

  Lay

  Mr. J. Lewis

  —

  Lay

  Wolverhampton

  Mr. D. Evans

  4

  Contractor

  Ms. T. Evans

  —

  Lay

  1 Figures in brackets show the length of service as a member before becoming chairman.

  Drugs Testing
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on the use of patients in the United Kingdom for experimental test purposes for an American drug company provided that the company holds a valid clinical test certificate or clinical trial exemption certificate issued by the United Kingdom licensing authority; what arrangements there are for the patients to be informed that they are to be used for experimental test purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Within the National Health Service all research proposals on human subjects, including drug trials, should be approved by a local research ethics committee before they commence. The committee will want to look at all aspects of the research proposal, including any certificates issued by the United Kingdom Licensing Authority and what arrangements have been made for the information of patients involved, before giving or withholding their approval.
  424
  committee whose chairman was not reappointed in March-April 1989, the name of the chairmen not reappointed, their length of service on that family practitioner committee, their status on that committee, namely, as a contractor or lay person, and the name of the person appointed in their place, together with a note of their length of service on that family practitioner committee and their status and, where no reappointment has yet occurred, the date on which he hopes to announce the name of the new chairman and the cause of the hiatus.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is contained in the table. We hope to announce names for the two remaining vacancies shortly.

  Medical Scientists
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the level of pay for medical physicists in the National Health Service; and if he has any plans to change the level of retention and recruitment of staff.

  Mr. Mellor
  The pay of medical physicists is a matter for negotiation between the management side of the scientific and professional staffs council and the staff side representing scientists employed in the NHS. Negotiations are continuing on the staff side pay cliam for 1989/90. I understand that the management side has set up a working party which has been investigating the position with regard to recruitment and retention of scientists.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he is making in negotiations to resolve the Whitley council PTAA staff pay claim for 1989, covering health care professionals, including clinical psychologists, biochemists, microbiologists and other scientists, including those at the public health laboratory service, Porton Down; and if he will make a statement.
  425
  Mr. Mellor
  The pay of clinical psychologists, biochemists, microbiologists and other scientists, including those employed at Porton Down, is a matter for negotiation between the management side of the scientific and professional staffs council and the staff side representing scientists employed in the NHS. Negotiations are continuing on the staff side pay claim for 1989–90.

  Health Education Authority
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the current remit of the Health Education Authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  The remit of the Health Education Authority is set out in its establishment and constitution order. The authority's main tasks are to advise my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health on health education matters and to undertake programmes of health education in England, except for AIDS public education, which is on a United Kingdom-wide basis.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance has been given by his Department to the Health Education Authority on strategic and operational planning for health education programmes for elderly people;

  (2) what particular responsibility the Health Education Authority has for the promotion and support of health education programmes for elderly people.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Health Education Authority has no responsibility to provide health education for any specific age group. The planning guidelines issued by the Department of Health to the Health Education Authority ask that the Health education needs of elderly people be taken into account in the authority's forward plans which are currently being developed.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in the Official Report those hospitals which opened in each district health authority in 1988, together with the number of beds.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that this information is not available centrally.

  Abortion
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in the Official Report those recommendations

  Number of abortions carried out under the Abortion Act 1967 by gestation, statutory grounds and mothers age. Residents and non-residents of England and Wales, 1987.

  Statutory grounds Age

  Gestation weeks

  17–18

  19–20

  21–22

  23+

  All grounds

  Under 15

  67

  27

  35

  31

  15

  204

  92

  71

  38

  16–19

  1,608

  978

  539

  336

  2 (alone)

  Under 15

  65

  25

  35

  31

  15

  201

  91

  71

  38

  16–19

  1,552

  926

  520

  329

  3 (with or without 2)

  Under 20

  34

  23

  9

  4

  426
  contained in the Select Committee on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill 1974–75 which have been implemented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The then Secretary of State announced acceptance in principle of the nine recommendations made by the Select Committee and all of them were subsequently implemented in part or in full.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in the Official Report those recommendations contained in the First and Second Reports of the Select Committee on Abortion 1976 which have not been implemented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The first report of the Select Committee recommended that the Government should introduce legislation to amend the Abortion Act 1967 in a number of ways. This would, however, have involved departure from the longstanding practice of leaving legislation on abortion to Bills brought forward by private Members as successive Governments have been neutral on abortion legislation. The second report concentrated on research, conscientious objection, disparity in the provision of NHS services, and the cost of abortion in the NHS, and made four recommendations which were not taken forward in the terms in which they were expressed.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the number of abortions performed on girls aged 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 years according to the grounds of termination in each year since 1968;

  (2) what was the total number of abortions performed on girls aged 10, II, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 years since 1968.

  Mr. Freeman
  1 regret that the information could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of abortions performed on girls aged 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 years according to the grounds of termination in 1987 and 1988 for 18 weeks and each week thereafter to 28 weeks.

  Mr. Freeman
  The exact information requested cannot be released for reasons of maintaining confidentiality. The table shows the data which can be released within these constraints for 1987; data for 1988 are not yet available.
  427

  Statutory grounds Age

  Gestation weeks

  17–18

  19–20

  21–22

  23+

  4 (alone)+ 4 (with any other except 1)

  Under 20

  26

  30

  9

  5

  Others

  Under 20

  1

  2

  1

  0

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of abortions at 21 weeks, 23 weeks and 24 weeks gestation were performed during 1987 and 1988 on girls aged 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 years to save the life of the pregnant woman.

  Mr. Freeman
  There were three abortions performed in England and Wales in 1987 with mention of ground 5 of the 1967 Abortion Act (which allows abortions to be performed in order to save the life of the pregnant woman). Further details relating to age or gestation cannot be given for reasons of maintaining confidentiality.

  Data for 1988 are not yet available.

  Cancer Screening
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how far the recently agreed programme of breast screening for women aged over 50 years has been implemented; and whether he has any plans to widen the service.

  Mr. Mellor
  The table lists those breast screening centres in England which are now operational.

  Under the programme, all women aged between 50 and 64 years will be invited to be screened by mammography every three years; older women will be screened on request. The purpose of screening is to detect changes in breast tissue which might be cancerous at an early stage when treatment can be simple and most likely to be effective.

  Plans for extending the breast screening programme to cover all district health authorities in England are well advanced; a full nationwide service comprising about 80 centres (including mobile units) is expected to be operational in 1990.

  The breast screening programmes in the other parts of the United Kingdom are the responsibilities of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  SCREENING CENTRES OPERATIONAL AS AT JUNE 1989

  Region and centres

  Northern

  Gateshead

  Newcastle

  428

  Yorkshire

  Huddersfield

  Trent

  Nottingham

  Leicester

  Lincoln

  East Anglian

  King's Lynn

  Suffolk

  Peterborough

  North West Thames

  Barnet

  North East Thames

  Epping

  Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital

  South East Thames

  Camberwell

  South West Thames

  Guildford

  Wessex

  Southampton

  Isle of Wight

  Portsmouth

  Oxford

  Aylesbury

  Northampton

  Wycombe

  South Western

  Cornwall

  Avon

  West Midlands

  Stoke on Trent

  Coventry

  Dudley

  Walsall

  Mersey

  Liverpool

  North Western

  Manchester

  Bolton

  Wigan

  Midwives
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he now expects to respond to the Social Services Committee regarding midwives' regrading; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) on 10 May 1989, at columns 450–51.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many of the units expressing interest in self-governing status have complied with paragraph 5.3 of the self-governing hospitals working paper No. 1; and if he will take steps to require the remainder to do so;

  (2) if he will list those units contained in his list of medical units expressing interest in becoming self-governing who have consulted staff and patient representatives and have met with their approval;

  (3) when considering applications for self-governing status from ambulance services, whether he intends consulting other emergency services; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) whether he intends to consult medical staff and patient representatives when making a decision to approve or disapprove applications for self-governing status in light of his commitment to judge whether the changes would be in the interests of the National Health Service, hospitals and patients.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 12 June 1989]: Expressions of interest are no more than that. We are aware that in many cases informal consultation has taken place but it would be unrealistic to engage in formal consultation at this stage, because people may not have enough information to give an informed opinion. All the main interests—including staff and the local community—will have an opportunity to express their views when detailed proposals have been worked up. We will take all responses into account when deciding whether to approve an application.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those units that are entire hospitals with 250 beds or over contained in his list of units expressing interest in becoming self-governing.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 12 June 1989]: The information is not available in the form requested. The table lists those units which include entire hospitals with 250 beds or over:

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  Darlington—hospital and community services

  Freeman Hospital, Newcastle

  Hartlepool District

  Mental Illness Services in Gateshead

  Newcastle General Hospital

  Newcastle Mental Health Unit

  Northgate Hospital

  North Tyneside District

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  Bradford—Acute Hospital Trust

  Calderdale Hospitals, Calderdale HA

  430

  General Infirmary, Leeds and associated Units—Leeds Western

  Grimsby DGH and associated services

  High Royds Hospital Mental Health Services, Leeds Western

  St. James's University Hospital, Leeds Eastern

  Seacroft and Killingbeck Hospitals, Leeds Eastern

  Wakefield District—Mental Health Unit

  Trent Regional Health Authority

  Bassetlaw Hospital and associated community services

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Maxborough Montagu Hospital

  Nether Edge Hospital, Sheffield

  Northern General Hospital, Sheffield

  University Hospital, Nottingham

  Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield

  East Anglian Regional Health Authority

  East Suffolk Psychiatric Services

  Newmarket General Hospital

  Peterborough DGH, Edith Cavell DGH, Stamford and Rutland Hospital

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Kings Lynn and associated services

  North West Thames Regional Health Authority

  Central Middlesex Hospital

  East Hertfordshire Acute Services Unit

  North Hertfordshire Hospital and Community Services

  North West Hertfordshire Priority Services Unit

  Northwich Park Hospital

  Mount Vernon/Hillingdon Hospitals with associated Community Services

  Westminster and Westminster Children's Hospitals

  North East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Basildon and Thurrock HA

  Central North London Mental Health Unit

  London Hospital

  Mid Essex Acute Unit

  Royal Free Hospital + North Middlesex Hospital

  St. Bartholomews, Homerton and St. Marks Hospital Trust

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital

  St. Margaret's Hospital, Epping

  Southend Acute Unit

  North East Essex Acute Unit

  North East Essex Mental Handicap Unit

  North East Essex Mental Health Unit

  Waltham Forest Mental Health Unit

  South West Thames Regional Health Authority

  Croydon HA—Mental Handicap Unit

  Croydon HA—Mental Illness Unit

  East Surrey HA—Acute and Community Services Unit

  Kingston and Esher HA—Kingston Hospital

  Mid Downs HA—East Unit

  Mid Downs HA—West Unit

  Mid Surrey HA—General (Acute) Unit

  Mid Surrey HA—Mental Illness Unit

  North West Surrey HA—Acute Unit

  North West Surrey HA—Mental Handicap and Mental Health Units

  St. George's Group Trust, Wandsworth HA

  St. Helier and Sutton Hospitals, Merton and Sutton HA

  South West Surrey HA—Acute Unit

  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals, Worthing HA

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Brighton HA—main acute hospitals

  Bromley HA

  Camberwell HA (excluding mental illness services)

  Eastbourne Hospitals—Eastbourne HA

  Guy's Hospital

  Lewisham Hospital Unit

  Maidstone DGH

  Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup + Erith and District Hospital + Community

  Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead

  St. Thomas' Hospital

  431

  Tunbridge Wells Mental Handicap Unit

  West Lambeth HA—Priority Care Unit

  William Harvey and Buckland Hospitals—South East Kent HA

  Wessex Regional Health Authority

  Bournemouth Acute Unit, East Dorset HA

  Christchurch Hospital, East Dorset HA

  Psychiatric Division, Basingstoke HA

  Swindon HA—All District Services

  West Dorset HA—All District Services comprises 1, 2, or 3

  trusts

  South Western Regional Health Authority

  Bristol Royal Infirmary Acute Services

  Cheltenham and District

  East Cornwall Acute Services

  East Somerset (Yeovil): Acute/Primary Care Services + Yateman Hospital

  North Devon DHA

  Plymouth DHA

  Torbay DHA

  West Somerset (Musgrove): Acute Services

  Wonford Acute Services, Exeter

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority

  Alexandra DGH/Acute Services Unit (Bromsgrove and Redditch)

  Good Hope DGH/Northcroft/Jaffray/Community (N. Birmingham)

  Highcroft, Mental Illness Hospital (N. Birmingham)

  Manor DGH/Acute Services Unit (Walsall)

  Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital (Shropshire)

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital (Shropshire)

  Rugby District

  St. George's Hospital/Mental Health Unit (Mid Staffordshire)

  St. Margaret's, Mental Handicap Hospital, (Walsall)

  Walsgrave DGH, Coventry

  Mersey Regional Health Authority

  Arrowe Park and Clatterbridge Hospitals

  Broadgreen Hospital, exc. Mersey Regional Cardio-Thoracic Unit

  Cranage Hall, Crewe

  Leighton Hospital, Crewe (Acute Services)

  Liverpool Mental Health Services

  Macclesfield DGH (Acute Services)

  Macclesfield Mental Health Services

  Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital (Alder Hey)

  Royal Liverpool Hospital

  Southport DGH (Acute Services)

  Southport and Formby Psychiatric/Community Services

  Walton and Fazakerley Hospitals, South Sefton

  Warrington DGH

  Whiston and St. Helen's Hospital

  North Western Regional Health Authority

  Christie Hospital, South Manchester HA

  Manchester Royal Infirmary + St. Mary's Hospital + Royal Eye Hospital

  Royal Preston Hospital, Preston HA

  Stepping Hill Hospital + Stockport Infirmary, Stockport HA

  Wrightington Hospital, West Lancashire HA

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide references for the passages in the White Paper, "Working for Patients" and associated documents, in which the implications of and safeguards required for primary care or ambulance services if they become self-governing are discussed.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 12 June 1989]: The White Paper discusses self-governing trusts in terms of hospitals or other units providing care or services for patients. But self-governing status could be practical for a wide range of
  432
  NHS services, and we are considering the implications for particular services in the light of any expressions of interest received.

  Mr. Kirk wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) under what conditions he will approve applications from ambulance services to become self-governing; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) under what conditions he will approve applications from primary care services to become self-governing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 12 June 1989]: We would propose to consider each application on its merits, provided it meets the general criteria outlined in the White Paper.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is his timetable for approving or disapproving applications for medical units to become self-governing;

  (2) whether units other than 250 bed hospitals will have their applications to become self-governing approved in time to begin in April 1991.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 12 June 1989]: We would aim to establish the first NHS hospital trust as soon as possible after the necessary legislation receives Royal Assent, so that they can complete their preparations before April 1991, the earliest sensible time to establish the first self-governing hospitals. We would be prepared to consider a wide variety of units among the first self-governing units.

  AIDS
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest assessment of the possible spread of the HIV infection within prisons and after the prisoner is released; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  An informed assessment is not possible on the basis of HIV screening and practice.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Schemes
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, at the most recently available date, and for the same months in 1986,1987 and 1988 how many people of YTS eligible age, registered with jobcentres or the careers service were awaiting an offer of a YTS place; and how many unfilled places on the scheme were available at those dates, broken down for each training agency region and for Great Britain as a whole.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government guarantee the offer of a suitable YTS place to all under-18-year-olds who want one.

  As at 31 May 1989, there were some 141,144 unfilled vacancies on YTS in Great Britain. The numbers for each of the Training Agency regions are as follows:

  Numbers

  Scotland

  13,770

  Northern

  8,910

  North West

  17,822

  433

  Numbers

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  16,518

  West Midlands

  24,343

  Wales

  4,454

  East Midlands

  16,796

  South West

  11,500

  South East

  18,267

  London

  8,764

  These figures far exceed the demand for places. Young people have a good choice of training opportunities. It is not possible to compare the current situation with that in previous years when the YTS guarantee was of the offer of a suitable place by Christmas to any of that year's school leavers who were unemployed.

  Departmental Expenditure Plans
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much the change in the expenditure plans for his Department for 1989–90 from the 1988–89 estimated outturn will be(a) in percentage terms and (b) after adjustment for the gross domestic product deflator.

  Mr. Cope
  The 1988–89 estimated outturn for my Department is 2·8 per cent. lower than the 1987–88 outturn. After adjustment for the gross domestic product deflator, the 1988–89 estimated outturn is £289 million (8.5 per cent.) lower than the 1987–88 outturn.

  Rehabilitation Centres
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the total numbers of people who completed courses at employment rehabilitation centres in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what percentage in each year subsequently(a) obtained employment or (b) entered a course of training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The total number of people who completed courses with the employment rehabilitation service in each of the last five years was as follows:

  Number

  1984–85

  12,000

  1985–86

  13,440

  1986–87

  14,790

  1987–88

  16,000

  1988–89

  26,000

  The percentage in each year who either obtained employment or entered a course of training was as follows:

  Employment/Community Programme

  Training/YTS

  1984–85

  29

  9

  1985–86

  34

  10

  1986–87

  39

  10

  1987–88

  41

  10

  1988–891

  40

  17

  1 1 April—31 August 1988 only.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average length of attendance at employment rehabilitation centres in each of the last five years; and what was the average per capita cost to his Department.
  434
  Mr. Nicholls
  The average length of attendance on courses run by the employment rehabilitation service in each of the last five years and the average per capita cost to the Department was as follows:

  Average length of attendance

  Average per capita cost

  £

  1984–85

  35 days

  2,287

  1985–86

  32 days

  2,214

  1986–87

  32 days

  2,332

  1987–88

  30 days

  1,250

  1988–891

  17 days

  2886

  1 1 April—31 August 1988 only

  2 Provisional figure.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total expenditure on employment rehabilitation centres in each of the last.five years for which figures are available; and what percentage in each year was received in grants from the European social fund.

  Mr. Nicholls
  As far as expenditure figures for the employment rehabilitation service are concerned I refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on Wednesday 24 May 1989 at column 576.

  European social fund claims made in report of the employment rehabilitation service resulted in the following grants to HM Government:

  £

  1984

  6,144,397

  1985

  8,358,625

  1986

  2,710,925

  1987

  3,193,687

  1988

  2,667,794

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what outcome measures of rehabilitation are used by his Department to assess the effectiveness of the employment services for people with disabilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The outcome measures used to assess the effectiveness of the employment rehabilitation service are as follows:

  (i) Total number of courses;

  (ii) Total number of clients attending courses;

  (iii) Clients with disabilities expressed as a percentage of the total client group;

  (iv) The percentage of clients who proceed to rehabilitation following an assessment course;

  (v) Average cost per disabled client;

  (vi) Average cost per week per disabled client;

  (vii) Average resettlement rate into employment or training;

  (viii) Average cost per disabled client resettled into employment or training.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many job vacancies in information technology industries were registered in the Bristol travel-to-work area at the latest available date, and two years earlier.
  435
  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available.

  Benefit Entitlement
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons have been disentitled from receiving unemployment benefit where they have been deemed to be unemployed without just cause since October 1988(a) in England and Wales, and (b) in unemployment benefit offices in Hackney; and, in each case, if he will state the percentage of cases of which decisions were taken by adjudicating officers to suspend benefit for less than the maximum 26 weeks.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information is not available in the precise form requested.

  Figures on the number of persons disqualified for leaving their employment voluntarily without just cause in the unemployment benefit offices in Hackney are not collected separately, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Information requested on the percentage of claimants disqualified for less than the statutory period of 26 weeks is not collected. However, the Department of Social Security has undertaken a survey to establish the proportion of claims which are disqualified for the maximum period. The results are at present being analysed and will be published shortly.

  The number of claimants disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit because they left employment voluntarily without just cause for the period 1 July 1988 to 31 March 1989 in England and Wales was 156,683.

  Skills Training Agency
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he intends to finance the expenditure in connection with the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency.

  Mr. Cope
  The expenses will be covered by receipts from the sale. Parliamentary approval for the new service will be sought in a new token Supply Estimate (Class VII, Vote 5) for the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency, to be presented in the Summer Supplementary Estimates round, seeking provision for preliminary expenses and token provision for the main expenses. Later in the year

  Type of Crossing

  Year

  Total number of accidents

  AHB

  AOCL

  Controlled

  Deaths

  Injuries

  Deaths

  Injuries

  Deaths

  1984

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  2

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  1986

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1987

  3

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1989

  2

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  AOCL = Automatic open crossing locally monitored

  AHB = Automatic half-barrier

  All these accidents resulted from collision with road vehicles. In all cases the speed of trains was limited. The limit varies according to local conditions.

  Vocational Rehabilitation
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the integration of
  436
  parliamentary approval will be sought for the substantive provision for the main expenses of the sale. Pending the necessary approval urgent expenditure on fees for professional advice, the first tranche of which is estimated to be £250,000, will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  Mental Handicap (Vocational Training)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the first European national conference for vocational training for mental handicap in Maastricht, in April; what official representation attended the conference from the United Kingdom; and if he will place in the Library any papers resulting from the conference.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 12 June 1989]: The United Kingdom Government were not invited to send representatives. I understand that two officials from the Northern Ireland Department of Economic Development attended, though not in an official capacity.

  Claimants
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if benefit officers or staff, including fraud officers and claimant advisers, have targets for numbers of claimants who cease to claim or are removed from benefit.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 13 June 1989]: No.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Level Crossings
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many deaths and injuries there have been at level crossings, by type of crossing, in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years; whether there are any limits on the speed of trains at each such type of level crossing; and how many of the incidents in each year resulting in death and injury involved collision with road vehicles.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is as follows:

  vocational rehabilitation with both the structure and administration of social security in Northern Ireland; what action he is taking to improve co-ordination; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 13 June 1989]: The Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Economic Development have agreed

  437
  arrangements whereby people receiving social security benefits may participate in a rehabilitation programme and continue to receive benefit for a period of up to four weeks. If at the end of this initial period a person is considered suitable for full-time training, payment of benefit ceases and is replaced by a training allowance, payable at the rate of the previous benefit plus a premium of £10 a week. On completion of training, payment of benefit will resume if the normal conditions are still satisfied. The rules governing people's entitlement both during and after training will continue as at present.

  The need for informal co-ordination between Departments in providing help for the disabled will be examined as part of the Government's consideration of the results of the current survey of the disabled in Northern Ireland.

  Glen House
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which adjoining property owners have been formally notified of the planning application No. 0339 to develop lands at Glen house, Mountain road-Crawfordsburn road, Newtownards.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 13 June 1989]: The following occupiers were neighbour notified in relation to planning application No. 0339—Nos 3, 5, 7 and 9 Mountain road and No. 41 Crawfordsburn road, Newtownards.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which adjoining property owners have been formally notified of the planning application No. 0340 to develop lands at Glen house, Mountain Road-Crawfordsburn road, Newtownards.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 13 June 1989]: The following occupiers were neighbour notified in relation to planning application No. 0340—Nos. 7, 9, 11 13, 15, 17, 41, 43, 45, 47 and 49 Mountain road, Newtownards. The occupiers of Nos. 41 and 49 Crawfordsburn road, Newtownards should also have been notified but, due to an oversight, they were not. However, both these occupiers contacted the Department of Environment (Northern Ireland) about the proposed development and were obviously aware of it despite the lack of neighbour notifications.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which adjoining property owners have been formally notified of the planning application No. 0336 to develop lands at Glen house, Mountain road-Crawfordsburn road, Newtownards.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 13 June 1989]: The following occupiers were neighbour notified in relation to planning application No. 0336—Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 Mountain road, and No. 55 Crawfordsburn road, Newtownards.

SCOTLAND

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will detail the total monies so far paid out,438
  to individuals and local authorities, respectively, as a result of the severe weather conditions earlier in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 27 April details of the special financial assistance being made available, and invited claims from local authorities and those eligible for the higher rates of agricultural grants which were announced at the same time. To date, my officials have held discussions with several local authorities about the possibility of assistance, and a number of inquiries about agricultural grants have been made by persons affected by the severe weather in February. To date, however, no claims under these measures have been received, and therefore no payments have been made.

  Health Screening
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his Department's current priorities for screening in health care in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Current priorities are the establishment of systematic programmes to screen women aged between 20 and 60 at five-yearly intervals for cervical cancer and women aged between 50 and 64 at three-yearly intervals for breast cancer. Computerised call and recall systems will enable health boards to invite all women in the eligible age groups to attend for a cervical smear test by December 1993 and for a breast screening test by March 1994.

  In addition, screening of all pregnant women is carried out for the purpose of detecting fetal abnormalities. Following birth, children are screened for inherited or developmental conditions and this is continued throughout the school years. Since 1 December 1988 screening for HIV infection has been available for all women attending ante-natal clinics in Edinburgh and Dundee.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all current publicity campaigns being conducted by or for his Department or campaigns planned for the first three months of 1989–90, indicating those which involve television advertising and the starting and finishing dates of each campaign.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 April 1989]: My Department was conducting publicity campaigns on school boards and the community charge during April. They were scheduled to run from 9 April to 6 May and from 3 to 28 April respectively. Both involved television advertising. A campaign for road safety was shown on television from 6 March to 8 April.

  Planning of publicity campaigns for the whole of the first three months of 1989–90 is not yet complete.

  New Towns
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the findings of the surveys carried out in the Scottish new towns on the question of the residents views on the disposal of the development corporations housing stock; and if he will make a statement.
  439
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 June 1989]: This matter will be covered in the forthcoming White Paper on the Scottish new towns.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Plessey plc
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how, in the event that GEC/Siemens acquire the Plessey company, he proposes to ensure continued competitive solutions in the research and development field.

  Mr. Maude
  In its report on the proposed acquitition of Plessey by GEC Siemens, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission concluded that the effect of the proposed acquisition on research and development would not operate against the public interest. In accordance with the Commission's recommendations, however, my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to seek undertakings, amongst others, that would satisfy United Kingdom national security requirements as to the ownership and management of defence, research and development and semiconductor activities. Negotiations on undertakings continue.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how, in the event that GEC/Siemens acquire the Plessey company, he plans to ensure that Plessey radar and Plessey defence systems can compete equally with GEC companies.

  Mr. Maude
  Following publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the proposed acquisition of Plessey by GEC Siemens, my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made it clear that the proposed acquisition should not proceed until satisfactory undertakings have been obtained from GEC and Siemens, including undertakings from GEC that GEC should not acquire any interest in or influence or control over the management of the Plessey radar and defence systems businesses. Negotiations on undertakings continue.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what measures are being taken to safeguard the position of Britain's base of enabling technology in semiconductors in the event that GEC/Siemens succeed in taking over Plessey;

  (2) what measures are being taken to safeguard the position of the United Kingdom as the European leader in application specific integrated circuits in the event that GEC/Siemens succeed in taking over Plessey.

  Mr. Maude
  In its report on the proposed acquisition of Plessey by GEC Siemens, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission concluded that the effect of the proposed acquisition on electronic components would not operate against the public interest. In accordance with the Commission's recommendations, however, my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to seek undertakings, amongst others, that would satisfy United Kingdom national security requirements as to the ownership and management of defence, research and development and semiconductor activities. Negotiations on undertakings continue.

  "Open for Business"
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what response there has been to his Department's European "Open for Business" campaign.

  Mr. Maude
  The response has been huge. Our weekly survey indicates that 90 per cent. of business throughout the country is now aware of the single market and around 50 per cent. is taking action or considering steps to prepare for it. DTI has received over 230,000 requests for information on the single market since the campaign was launched in March 1988, including over 132,000 calls to our 1992 hotline. In addition, DTI Ministers and officials have spoken at more than 1,000 single market conferences since the campaign began and are committed to over 130 other single market engagements during the remainder of this year.

  Imports (Consumer Goods)
  Mr. Butterlill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of the 1987–88 imports figure was accounted for by consumer goods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Consumer goods (1) accounted for 18 per cent. of United Kingdom imports on an overseas trade statistics basis in each of the years 1987 and 1988.

  (1) Part of SITC 7 and 8, based on the United Nations broad economic categories.

  Refrigeration Industry
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had with representatives of the refrigeration industry about the effects of restrictions on CFC consumption; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry held a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East and a delegation from the industry on 7 June.

  Additionally, officials have had a number of meetings with the industry during the last two years to discuss the implications of the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, which control the use of chlorofluorocarbons used by the refrigeration, air conditioning and other industries; the extent to which savings in the use of these substances may be made; and the forseeable effects of a strengthened protocol.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many responses he received to the consultative document, "Possible Changes to the Financial Services Act 1986", published on 1 March; how many respondents supported the proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  My Department received responses to the consultation document entitled "Possible Changes to the Financial Services Act 1986" from 67 organisations, companies and individuals. The document invited comments on a number of possibilities, not all of which were related, and many of the responses were also wide-ranging. It would not therefore be meaningful to analyse them in the way requested.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to what extent trade with eastern Europe, excluding the USSR, has increased in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  United Kingdom trade with eastern Europe, excluding the USSR, is given in the following table:

  United Kingdom trade with eastern Europe excluding USSR 1979 to 1988

  Value in £ million

  Imports

  Exports

  Balance

  1979

  563·7

  549·6

  -14·1

  1980

  492·5

  673·4

  + 180·9

  1981

  398·3

  600·1

  + 201·8

  1982

  484·3

  510·2

  + 25·9

  1983

  571·4

  503·8

  -67·6

  1984

  902·8

  572·8

  -3300

  1985

  851·7

  649·4

  -202·3

  1986

  827·4

  626·2

  -201·2

  1987

  825·5

  625·3

  -200·2

  1988

  859·3

  683·9

  -175·4

  Source: Table 1B of the Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Notes: 1. Figures for 1988 are provisional.

  2. Imports valued at cif, exports fob.

  Paperless Share Transactions
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will state the Government's intentions for facilitating paperless transactions and holdings in shares.

  Mr. Maude
  I announced on 1 December at column 369 that I was considering proposing changes to the law that would, if both the company and the shareholder wished, enable shares to be held on computer, without certificates, and to be transferred without the need for paper transfer forms. This process, sometimes referred to as dematerialisation, is important for London's leading position as an international trading market. Paperless schemes will also offer important benefits for wider share ownership by providing a more efficient service to investors.

  I issued a consultative document on the proposed changes and I am grateful to all those individuals and organisations who responded. It is essential that any schemes finally developed meet the legitimate needs of all potential users and I welcome the progress made by the international stock exchange as a result of its recent and continuing consultations.

  The moves towards paperless trading are intended to reduce transaction risks and costs. In considering possible changes to legislation it is essential to strike the right balance between the interests of shareholders, of companies and of the financial institutions. I have also borne in mind that schemes will develop over time and that competitors may emerge with different approaches from the nominee-based scheme currently being considered by the stock exchange. Against this background it is clearly important that the framework should be flexible.

  I hope to bring forward proposals in the form of amendments to the Companies Bill. These will be intended to ensure that the move towards paperless trading does not alter significantly the effect in practice of current company, investor protection and insolvency law. In order to achieve this the Secretary of State would be empowered to make regulations, subject to affirmative resolution, which would
  442
  then provide a framework within which authorised systems would operate. The purpose of the regulations would be:

  (a) to facilitate the introduction and operation of computer based systems for recording the holding of securities (or interests in them) and for their transfer;

  (b) to ensure that, as far as reasonably practicable, investors, issuers (ie companies) and other are in a corresponding position under such a computer-based system as they are under the present paper-based system.

  The regulations will make provisions inter alia for ensuring that authorised systems and their participants are properly regulated. They will also ensure that the speed and ease with which information about the identities of owners of shares is made available is comparable to present arrangements; and that investors continue to enjoy broadly the same rights as they do now.

  Electricity Boards
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many representations he has received regarding alleged abuses of Fair Trading and Competition Acts by electricity boards.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 12 June 1989]: Three.

  Eastern Electricity Board
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will instruct the Director General of Fair Trading to investigate the current retail practices of the Eastern electricity board.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 12 June 1989]: It is for the Director General of Fair Trading to decide whether to carry out an investigation to establish whether someone is engaging in an anti-competitive practice. I understand that the Director General is following up complaints from retailers of electrical hardware.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those who have made representations regarding alleged anti-competitive practices by the Eastern electricity board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 12 June 1989]: No: I treat such representations in confidence.

  Beer (MMC Report)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to announce his decision on implementing the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the supply of beer.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 12 June 1989]: I made a preliminary statement about the scope of application of some of the proposed measures on 8 June at column 229. I am anxious to settle the remaining issues quickly.

THE ARTS

  School Parties (Museum Charges)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister for the Arts which national museums impose charges for school parties; and what advice he issues museums in respect of educational charges.
  443
  Mr. Luce
  The National Maritime museum and Merseyside Maritime museum are the only national museums to levy charges for school parties. Both operate concessionary charge schemes.

  The policy on charging educational parties is a matter for the director and trustees of each individual museum.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Inner London Education Authority (Women Employees)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received suggesting that the draft regulations on redundancy and detriment compensation discriminate against women employees of the Inner London Education Authority; and what has been his response.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is currently considering representations from the TUC on this point.

  Further Education (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many 16-year-olds stay on in education after this age in the Inner London education authority.

  Mr. Jackson
  In 1987–88 there were approximately 11·5 thousand full-time students (a participation rate of 51 per cent.) and 1·5 thousand part-time students (a participation rate of 7 per cent.).

  Scottish Qualifications
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to approve Scottish qualifications for use in maintained schools in England in 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Yes. I intend that qualifications certificated by the Scottish Examination Board should be included in the supplementary list of qualifications approved for use in maintained schools in England in 1990 and 1991 which will be issued later this summer and which was foreshadowed in the Department's 31 May circular (11/89).

ENERGY

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the load factor achieved by the three wind turbines at Carmarthen hay(a) for 1988 and (b) to date during 1989.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The vertical axis wind turbine machine had a load factor of 13·3 per cent. for 1988 and 17·3 per cent. for the first quarter of 1989. The machine is being used as a test bed to support the VAWT development programme and, since 1987, has been operating in a different mode from that originally intended. Over this period, it has given satisfactory performance with an availability of 93 per cent.

  The Howden HWT300 machine has had a number of teething troubles with its control system, and representative operating data are not yet available; it is hoped that
  444
  suitable data will be acquired over the next year. The wind energy group MS3 machine is not yet fully commissioned, and load factor data are therefore not yet available.

  Energy Industries (Fatalities)
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list in the Official Report annual totals of fatalities since 1970 in the United Kingdom energy industries, showing separately the figures for (a) coal, (b) civil nuclear, and (c) offshore oil and gas.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The figures are as follows:

  Fatal injuries to employees in the energy sector Dale of Accident (calendar year except where otherwise indicated)

  1Coal Mining

  2Civil Nuclear

  3Offshore Oil and Gas

  1970

  91

  —

  1

  1971

  72

  —

  4

  1972

  64

  —

  3

  1973

  80

  —

  3

  1974

  48

  —

  12

  1975

  64

  —

  10

  1976

  50

  2

  17

  1977

  40

  1

  11

  1978

  63

  2

  4

  1979

  46

  —

  10

  1980

  42

  2

  4

  1981

  35

  2

  6

  1982

  38

  2

  14

  1983

  30

  2

  10

  1984

  19

  —

  13

  1985

  25

  1

  8

  1986

  418

  1

  3

  1987

  412

  —

  6

  1988

  420

  —

  573

  1 Reported to the Health and Safety Executive's inspectorate of mines and quarries (figures include both British Coal and private licensed mines)

  2 None of the civil nuclear fatalities involved exposure to radiation.

  3 The statistics include all fatalities on or near installations and pipeline works or on attendant vessels in the course of any operation undertaken in connection with an installation. They also include fatalities in respect of pipelines or in the course of pipeline works. Fatalities involving helicopters flying to or from installations are only included if they occur in the vicinity of the installation.

  4 Figures for coal fatalities compiled on a financial year basis since April 1986. There were a further seven fatalities between 1 January 1986 and 31 March 1986.

  5 167 of these fatalities relate to the Piper Alpha disaster.

  Harwell (Laboratories)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what new laboratories or existing laboratory upgrading and extensions have been built since 1979 at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment, operated by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority at Harwell; which of these have been paid for from a parliamentary vote; and which paid for by commercial contracts signed by the UKAEA or AEA technology.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Since 1979 the Harwell laboratory has completed seven major laboratory schemes. Details and information on how they were funded is as follows:

  Description

  Funding provided by

  Electron Linear Accelerator facility

  Vote

  Extension to Environmental and Medical Sciences building

  Vote

  New and improved facilities for handling radioactive wastes

  Vote

  445

  Description

  Funding provided by

  Thoria Pelleting plant

  Industrial customer

  Refurbishment of Post Irradiation Examination Laboratory

  1Capital

  Improvements to Biochemistry Building

  1Capital

  1 Since 1986, when the finances of the UKAEA were put on a trading fund basis, capital investment which is intended to serve several research and development customers has been capitalised and is funded corporately within the AEA's external financing limit.

  Nuclear Materials (Safeguards)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what period of notice the United Kingdom is required to give the safeguards authorities at the International Atomic Energy Agency and the European Atomic Energy Agency, Euratom, if nuclear material under safeguards is to be withdrawn from safeguards.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The United Kingdom is required to give to Euratom and the IAEA 10 days notice of withdrawal of material from the terms of the United Kingdom/Euratom/IAEA agreement unless otherwise specified in the relevant facality attachment.

  Sellafield
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what the basic technical characteristics of the Sellafield reprocessing facilities were submitted to Euratom for the purposes of developing safeguards arrangements for Sellafield.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Basic technical characteristics for different material balance areas at Sellafield have been formally submitted to Euratom at different times in addition to Euratom inspectors obtaining the technical characteristics during inspections. The development of safeguards approaches is mostly influenced by that latter knowledge.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the particular safeguards provisions for the Sellafield reprocessing facility were(a) first agreed and (b) first implemented; and if he will make a statement on the implementations of the safeguards arrangements at Sellafield.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Four particular safeguards provisions were agreed and came into force in 1988. The others are in an advanced stage of consultation, to come into force progressively.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  Mr. Pake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the negotiations to replenish the international fund for agricultural development; and what will be the British contribution.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I am glad to say that IFAD members successfully agreed early on 8 June to replenish the fund with at least $523 million so as to cover its operations up 446
  to 30 June 1992. The final total, to be fixed by the end of September, will depend on how far the group of non-oil developing countries can raise their pledges towards $75 million, in response to an offer by western donors to match this by 3:1. If that figure is reached, the replenishment will come to $611 million, corresponding to over $730 million for a full three year period. But the level already secured, with reflows to the fund, is enough to allow it to continue operations at a reasonable level.

  The British contribution, like that of other western donors, will only be finalised at the end of September. I shall report it to the House thereafter, and it will naturally be subject to parliamentary approval.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxation
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the anticipated effect on the Exchequer of raising the higher rate of taxation to 50 per cent.; arid if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The yield in a full year at 1989–90 levels of income of increasing the higher rate of income tax to 50 per cent. would be about £2½ billion. The estimate includes the consequential effect on the yield of capital gains tax. It is partly based on a projection of the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes and is provisional.

  Pension's (Civil Servants)
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the total cost of pensions paid to civil servants in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Brooke
  Pensions paid to civil servants, along with certain other pension payments (including pensions paid to the dependants of former civil servants), are a charge on the civil superannuation vote. It is not possible to separate out the costs of the other pension payments but, with the exception of pensions paid to the dependants of former civil servants, the costs are small. Total pension costs, as recorded in the Appropriation Accounts for subhead A 1 of the vote, in each of the last five years are as follows:

  £'000

  1983–84

  855,079

  1984–85

  931,344

  1985–86

  1,017,876

  1986–87

  1,112,685

  1987–88

  1,163,226

  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average pension and lump sum paid to civil servants in retirement after 40 years service in each grade from grade 6 and above.

  Mr. Brooke
  A civil servant with 40 years' service and paid at the scale maximum of the respective grade (excluding London weighting where payable) would qualify on retirement for a pension and lump sum as follows:
  447

  Pension £

  Lump sum £

  Grade 6

  14,085

  42,255

  Grade 5

  15,801

  47,403

  Grade 4

  17,707

  53,122

  Grade 3

  19,500

  58,500

  Grade 2

  24,000

  72,000

  Grade 1A

  31,375

  94,125

  Grade 1

  34,250

  102,750

  Capital gains tax

  Capital transfer taxi Inheritance tax

  Reduction, compared with indexed 1978–79 regime, in:

  Total liability (£ million)

  1988–89

  1,250

  600

  1989–90

  1,350

  670

  Average liability 1(£)

  1988–89

  1,900

  8,500

  1989–90

  1,900

  9,500

  Taxpayer numbers (thousands)

  1978–79 indexed regime

  1988–89

  650

  70

  1989–90

  700

  70

  Present regime

  1988–89

  145

  24

  1989–90

  160

  24

  1 The reduction in the average liability is calculated using the estimated number of taxpayers under the 1978–79 indexed regime.

  The figures for capital gains tax exclude capital gains realised by companies and taxed within corporation tax. For each tax, the 1988–89 and 1989–90 tax bases are taken as given. It is not possible to determine to what extent changes to the taxes between 1978–79 and the present may have affected the levels of transfers and disposals. The comparisons can be regarded as no more than indicative of the orders of magnitude involved.

  Public Safety Films
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the title and topic of those Government public safety films and announcements that have been screened on television in each of the last six months.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 8 June 1989]: Details of Government public safety films and announcements produced through the Central Office of Information on behalf of other Government Departments in each of the last six months for which data are available are as follows:

  PUBLIC SAFETY FILMS BROADCAST IN OCTOBER 1988

  Crime Prevention—Child Molestation

  Children Say No—Brownies

  Children Say No—Car

  Children Say No—Sweets (10s)

  Children Say No—Sweets (5s)

  Litter and Safety

  Keep Britain Tidy—Excuses (70s)

  Keep Britain Tidy—Excuses (40s)

  Keep Britain Tidy—Excuses (I0s)

  Fire Prevention—Children

  Welephant—Safe with Matches

  Fire Prevention—General

  Children Alone

  Cigarette Fires

  Clothes Fire Presenter

  Fat Pan Folly

  Taxation
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the reduction in annual liability to(a) capital gains tax and (b) capital transfer tax in 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 as against the 1978–79 indexed regime, specifying, in each case, the total and average reduction per taxpayer as well as the number of taxpayers in each year.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 15 May 1989]: Latest estimates for 1988–89 and 1989–90 are as follows:

  Fire at Night

  Fire Exits

  Fire in the Fat Pan Fire Routine

  Furniture Fires

  House that Jack Built, The

  How to Dial 999

  Last Smoke, The

  Phone Emergency

  Portable Heaters (60s)

  Portable Heaters (10s)

  Short Fires

  Upstairs Fire Escape

  Health-General

  Clean it up

  Collars and Leads

  Health Hazard

  Rabies Advice

  Rabies—Airport

  Road Safety—Children

  Charley's Tea Party

  Child Cyclist—Right Turn

  Children Crossing (40s)

  Children Crossing (20s)

  Pelican Pedestrians

  Road Safety—General

  Amber Gambler—Twins

  Dangerous Diamonds

  Don't Dazzle

  Driver Fatigue

  Elderly Pedestrians

  Eyesight when Driving

  Flying Motorbikes

  Hard Shoulders

  'Help'

  Horses and Cars

  How to Brake

  Junction Lanes

  Junction Parking

  Lane Discipline

  Let the Other Fella

  Know Look Out for Bikes

  449

  Mini Roundabouts

  Motorway Repair Sites

  Motorway Signals

  Overtaking near Junctions

  Passing Horses

  Pavement Parking

  Ply Group

  Read the Road

  Rear Seat Belts (60s)

  Rear Seat Belts (40s)

  Rear Seat Belts (10s)

  Safe Crossing

  Safe on the Motorway

  Safe Parking

  School Entrance Markings

  Separation Distances—Motorways

  Traffic Shapes

  Tyre Pressures

  Tyre Safety

  Yellow Box Junction

  Zig Zag—Parking

  Road safety—Motorbikes and Bicycles

  Bright Lights

  Helmet Advice

  Motorbikes—Stay Back

  Motorcycle—Overtaking

  Motorcycle Training (40s)

  Motorcycle Training (10s)

  Pedal Cycle Safety

  Road safety—Pedestrians

  Bright Aware

  Car Wash

  Lot on his Mind, A

  Road Dog

  Road Test Pedestrian

  Electricity and building safety

  Electricity—Sub-stations

  Electricity—Pylon

  Electricity—Fishing

  Keep Off Building Sites

  Safety—General

  Bare Wires

  BSI Chameleon

  Careless Fires

  Electricity Hazards

  Eye Protection

  Farm Machinery

  Farm Trailer

  Lifting Safely

  Slipping Ladders

  Safety in the home

  Children and Bottles

  Children and Bottles—Paint Stripper

  Children and Bottles—Anti-Freeze

  Children and Bottles—Danger Bottle

  Fatal Floor, The

  Flexes and Young Children (40s)

  Flexes and Young Children (20s)

  Flexes and Young Children (5s)

  The Right Steps (60s)

  The Right Steps (30s)

  The Right Steps (10s)

  Talking Gas

  Water safety—General

  Learn to Swim—Missing Out

  Swimming Lessons

  Winter

  Christmas Fire

  Driving in Fog

  Driving in Rain

  Motoway Fog

  Rear Fog Lamps

  Wet Motorbikes

  450
  PUBLIC SAFETY FILMS BROADCAST IN NOVEMBER 1988

  Crime Prevention—Child Molestation

  Children Say No—Brownies (20s)

  Children Say No—Car (10s)

  Children Say No—Sweets (10s)

  Children Say No—Sweets (5s)

  Litter and Safety

  Keep Britain Tidy—Excuses (70s)

  Keep Britain Tidy—Excuses (40s)

  Keep Britain Tidy—Excuses (10s)

  Fire Prevention—Children

  Welephant—Safety with Matches

  Fire Prevention—General

  Children Alone

  Cigarette Fires

  Clothes Fire Presenter

  Fat Man Folly

  Fire at Night

  Fire Exits

  Fire in the Fat Pan

  Furniture Fires

  House that Jack Built, The

  How to Dial 999

  Last Smoke, The

  Phone Emergency

  Portable Heaters (60s)

  Portable Heaters (10s)

  Short Fires

  Upstairs Fire Escape

  Health—General

  Clean it Up

  Collars and Leads

  Health Hazard

  Rabies advice

  Rabies—Airport

  Road safety—Children

  Child Cyclist—Right Turn

  Children Crossing (40s)

  Children Crossing (20s)

  Pelican Pedestrians

  Road safety—General

  Amber Gambler—Twins

  Clear Indication

  Dangerous Diamonds

  Don't Dazzle

  Driver Fatigue

  Elderly Pedestrians

  Eyesight when Driving

  Flying Motorbikes

  Hard Shoulders

  HGV Turning

  Horses and Cars

  How to Brake

  Junction Parking

  Lane Discipline

  Let the Other Fella Know

  Look out for Bikes

  Mini Roundabouts

  Motorway Repair Sites

  Motorway Signals

  Overtaking near Junctions

  Pavement Parking

  Ply Group

  Read the Road

  Rear Seat Belts (60s)

  Rear Seat Belts (40s)

  Rear Seat Belts (10s)

  Safe Crossing

  Safe on the Motorway

  Safe Parking

  School Entrance Markings

  Separation Distances—Motorways

  Traffic Shapes

  Tyre Pressures

  451

  Tyre Safety

  Yellow Box Junction

  Zig Zag—Parking

  Road Safety—Motorbikes and Bicycles

  Bright Lights

  Helmet Advice

  Motorcycle—Overtaking

  Motorcycle Training (40s)

  Motorcycle Training (10s)

  Pedal Cycle Safety

  Pedal Cycle Song

  Road Safety—Pedestrians

  Bright Aware

  Car Wash

  Lot on his Mind, A

  Road Dog

  Road Test Pedestrian

  Toddler Safety

  Electricity and Building Safety

  Electricity—Sub-stations

  Electricity—Pylon

  Electricity—Fishing

  Keep Off Building Sites

  Safety—General

  Bare Wires

  BSI Chameleon

  Careless Fires

  Electricity Hazards

  Eye Protection

  Farm Machinery

  Lifting Safely

  Slipping Ladders

  Safety in the Home

  Children and Bottles

  Children and Bottles—Paint Stripper

  Children and Bottles—Anti-Freeze

  Children and Bottles—Turpentine

  Children and Bottles—Danger Bottle

  Fatal Floor, the

  Flexes and Young Children (40s)

  Flexes and Young Children (20s)

  Flexes and Young Children (5s)

  Hot Drink Child

  Right Steps, The (60s)

  Right Steps, The (30s)

  Right Steps, The (10s)

  Water Safety—General

  Learn to Swim—Missing Out

  Swimming Lessons

  Fireworks Safety

  Fireworks—Dummy

  Winter

  Christmas Fire

  Driving in Fog

  Driving in Rain

  Motorway Fog

  Rear Fog Lamps

  Wet Motorbikes

  PUBLIC SAFETY FILMS BROADCAST IN DECEMBER 1988

  Crime Prevention—Child Molestation

  Children Say No—Brownies (20s)

  Children Say No—Car (10s)

  Children Say No—Sweets (10s)

  Children Say No—Sweets (5s)

  Litter and safety

  Keep Britain Tidy—Excuses (70s)

  Keep Britain Tidy—Excuses (40s)

  Keep Britain Tidy—Excuses (10s)

  Fire Prevention—Children

  Welephant—Safe with Matches

  452
  Fire prevention—General

  Children Alone

  Cigarette Fires

  Clothes Fire Presenter

  Fat Pan Folly

  Fire at Night

  Fire Exits

  Fire in the Fat Pan

  Fire Routine

  Furniture Fires

  House that Jack Built, The

  How to Dial 999

  Last Smoke, The

  Phone Emergency

  Portable Heaters (60s)

  Portable Heaters (10s)

  Short Fires

  Upstairs Fire Escape

  Health—General

  Clean it Up

  Collars and Leads

  Health Hazard

  Rubies Advice

  Rabies—Airport

  Road Safety—Children

  Child Cyclist—Right Turn

  Children Crossing (40s)

  Children Crossing (20s)

  Children Watch us Cross

  Pelican Pedestrians

  Road Safety—General

  Amber Gambler—Twins

  Clear Indication

  Dangerous Diamonds

  Don't Dazzle

  Driver Fatigue

  Elderly Pedestrians

  Eyesight when Driving

  Flying Motorbikes

  Hard Shoulders

  `Help'

  Horses and Cars

  How to Brake

  Junction Parking

  Lane Discipline

  Let the Other Fella Know

  Look out for Bikes

  Mini Roundabouts

  Motorway Repair Sites

  Motorway Signals

  Motorway Symbol

  Overtaking near Junctions

  Passing Horses

  Pavement Parking

  Ply Group

  Read the Road

  Rear Seat Belts (60s)

  Rear Seat Belts (40s)

  Rear Seat Belts (10s)

  Safe Crossing

  Safe on the Motorway

  Safe Parking

  School Entrance Markings

  Separation Distances—Motorways

  Steep Hill Warning

  Traffic Shapes

  Tyre Pressures

  Tyre Safety

  Yellow Box Junction

  Zig Zag—Parking

  Zig Zag—Sisters

  Road Safety—Motorbikes and Bicycles

  Bright Lights

  Motorbikes—Stay Back

  453

  Motorcycle—Overtaking

  Motorcycle Training (40s)

  Motorcycle Training (10s)

  Pedal Cycle Safety

  Road Safety—Pedestrians

  Bright Aware

  Car Wash

  Lot on his Mind, A

  Road Dog

  Road Test Pedestrian

  Electricity and Building Safety

  Electricity—Sub-stations

  Electricity—Pylon

  Electricity—Tree Climbing

  Electricity—Fishing

  Keep Off Building Sites

  Safety—General

  BSI Chameleon

  Careless Fires

  Electricity Hazards

  Eye Protection

  Farm Machinery

  Lifting Safely

  Slipping Ladders

  Safety in the Home

  Children and Bottles

  Children and Bottles—Paint Stripper

  Children and Bottles—Anti-Freeze

  Children and Bottles—Danger Bottle

  Fatal Floor, The

  Flexes and Young Children (40s)

  Flexes and Young Children (20s)

  Flexes and Young Children (5s)

  Loose Carpet Falls

  Right Steps, The (60s)

  Right Steps, The (30s)

  Talking Gas

  Water Safety—General

  Learn to Swim—Missing Out

  Swimming Lessons

  Youngsters Learn to Swim

  Winter

  Christmas Fire

  Driving in Fog

  Driving in Rain

  Motorway Fog

  Rear Fog Lamps

  Snow Seen

  Wet Motorbikes

  PUBLIC SAFETY FILMS BROADCAST IN JANUARY 1989

  Crime Prevention—Child Molestation

  Charley—Mummy Should Know

  Charley—Strangers

  Mr. Punch

  Children Say No—Brownies

  Children Say No—Car

  Children Say No—Sweets (10s)

  Children Say No.—Sweets (5s)

  Litter and Safety

  Keep Britain Tidy—Excuses (70s)

  Keep Britain Tidy—Excuses (40s)

  Keep Britain Tidy—Excuses (10s)

  Fire Prevention—Children

  Welephant—Safe with Matches

  Fire Prevention—General

  Children alone

  Cigarette Fires

  Clothes Fire Presenter

  Fat Pan Folly

  Fire at Night

  454

  Fire Exists

  Fire Routine

  Furniture Fires

  House that Jack Built, The

  How to Dial 999

  Last Smoke, The

  Old Smokers

  Overfilled Fat Pans

  Overloading Sockets

  Phone Emergency

  Portable Heaters (60s)

  Portable Heaters (10s)

  Short Fires

  Upstairs Fire Escape

  Health—General

  Clean it Up

  Collars and Leads

  This is an Emergency

  Road Safety—Children

  Pelican Pedestrians

  Road Safety—General

  Amber Gambler—Twins

  Clear Indication

  Dangerous Diamonds

  Don't Dazzle

  Driver Fatigue

  Eyesight when Driving

  Flying Motorbikes

  French Frank

  Hard Shoulders

  `Help'

  HGV Turning

  Horses and Cars

  How to Brake

  Junction Lanes

  Junction Parking

  Let the Other Fella Know

  Look out for Bikes

  Mini Roundabouts

  Motorway Repair Sites

  Motorway Signals

  Motorway Symbol

  Overtaking near Junctions

  Pavement Parking

  Ply Group

  Read the Road

  Rear Seat Belts (60s)

  Rear Seat Belts (40s)

  Rear Scat Belts (10s)

  Safe on the Motorway

  Safe Parking

  Separation Distances—Motorways

  Space Invader

  Traffic Shapes

  Tyre Pressures

  Tyre Safety

  Yellow Box Junction

  Zig Zag—Parking

  Road Safety—Motorbikes and Bicycles

  Bright Lights

  Motorbikes—Stay Back

  Motorcycle—Overtaking

  Motorcycle Training (40s)

  Motorcycle Training (10s)

  Road Safety—Pedestrians

  Bright Aware

  Car Wash

  Lot on his Mind, A

  Road Dog

  Road Test Pedestrian

  Electricity Safety

  Electricity—Sub-stations

  Electricity—Pylon

  455
  Safety—General

  Airguns

  Airguns—Leaflet

  Bare Wires

  BSI Chameleon

  Careless Fires

  Electricity Hazards

  Eye Protection

  Fagged Out

  Safety in the home

  Children and Bottles

  Children and Bottles—Anti-Freeze

  Children and Bottles—Turpentine

  Children and Bottles—Danger Bottle

  Fatal Floor, The

  Flexes and Young Children (20s)

  Flexes and Young Children (5s)

  Hot Drink Child

  Right Steps, The (60s)

  Right Steps, The (30s)

  Water Safety—General

  Children and Ponds

  Swimming Lessons

  Winter

  Driving in Fog

  Driving in Rain

  Rear Fog Lamps

  Snow Control and Spin

  Wet Motorbikes

  PUBLIC SAFETY FILMS BROADCAST IN FEBRUARY 1989

  Crime prevention—Child Molestation

  Charley—Mummy Should Know

  Charley—Strangers

  Mr. Punch

  Children Say No—Brownies

  Children Say No—Car

  Children Say No—Sweets (10s)

  Children Say No—Sweets (5s)

  Litter and safety

  Keep Britain Tidy—Excuses (70s)

  Keep Britain Tidy—Excuses (40s)

  Keep Britain Tidy—Excuses (10s)

  Fire Prevention—Children

  Welephant—Safe with Matches

  Fire prevention—General

  Children Alone

  Fat Pan Folly

  Fire at Night

  Fire Exits

  Fire in the Fat Pan

  Fire Routine

  Furniture Fires

  House that Jack Built, The

  How to Dial 999

  Last Smoke, The

  Overfilled Fat Pans

  Overloading Sockets

  Phone Emergency

  Portable Heaters (60s)

  Portable Heaters (10s)

  Short Fires

  Upstairs Fire Escape

  Health—General

  Clean it Up

  Collars and Leads

  Health Hazard

  Road Safety—Children

  Child Cyclist—Right Turn

  Children Crossing (20s)

  Pelican Pedestrians

  Supersafe with Super Ted

  456
  Road Safety—General

  Amber Gambler—Twins

  Clear Indication

  Dangerous Diamonds

  Dazzling Man

  Driver Fatigue

  Elderly Pedestrians

  Eyesight when Driving

  Flying Motorbikes

  Hard Shoulders

  'Help'

  Horses and Cars

  How to Brake

  If Only

  Junction Parking

  Lane Discipline

  Let the Other Fella Know

  Look out for Bikes

  Mini Roundabouts

  Motorway Repair Sites

  Motorway Signals

  Motorway Symbol

  Passing Horses

  Pavement Parking

  Ply Group

  Read the Road

  Rear seat Belts (60s)

  Rear Seat Belts (40s)

  Rear Seat Belts (10s)

  Safe on the Motorway

  School Entrance Markings

  Separation Distances—Motorways

  Steep Hill Warning

  Tyre Pressures

  Tyre Safety

  Yellow Box Junction

  Zig Zag—parking

  Road Safety—Motorbikes and Bicycles

  Bright Lights

  Helmet Advice

  Motorcycle—Overtaking

  Motorcycle Training (40s)

  Motorcycle Training (10s)

  Pedal Cycle Song

  Road Safety—Pedestrians

  Bright Aware

  Car Wash

  Lot on his Mind, A

  Road Dog

  Road Test Pedestrian

  Toddler Safety

  Electricity and Building Safety

  Electricity—Sub-stations

  Electricity—Pylon

  Electricity—Tree Climbing

  Electricity—Fishing

  Keep Off Building Sites

  Safety—General

  Airguns

  Bare Wires

  BSI Chameleon

  Electricity Hazards

  Eye Protection

  Fagged Out

  Farm Machinery

  Slipping Ladders

  Safety in the Home

  Children and Bottles

  Children and Bottles—Paint Stripper

  Children and Bottles—Anti-Freeze

  Children and Bottles—Danger Bottle

  Fatal Floor, The

  Flexes and Young Children (40s)

  Flexes and Young Children (20s)

  457

  Flexes and Young Children (5s)

  Right Steps, The (60s)

  Right Steps, The (30s)

  Right Steps, The (10s)

  Talking Gas

  Water Safety—General

  Children and Ponds

  Winter

  Driving in Fog

  Driving in Rain

  Rear Fog Lamps

  Wet Motorbikes

  PUBLIC SAFETY FILMS BROADCAST IN MARCH 1989

  Crime Prevention—Child Molestation

  Children Say No—Brownies

  Children Say No—Car

  Children Say No—Sweets (5s)

  Litter and Safety

  Keep Britain Tidy—Excuses (70s)

  Keep Britain Tidy—Excuses (40s)

  Fire Prevention—General

  Children Alone

  Cigarette Fires

  Fat Pan Folly

  Fire at Night

  Fire in the Fat Pan

  Fire Routine

  Furniture Fires

  House that Jack Built, The

  How to Dial 999

  Last Smoke, The

  Old Smokers

  Ovefilled Fat Pans

  Overloading Sockets

  Phone Emergency

  Portable Heaters (60s)

  Portable Heaters (10s)

  Upstairs Fire Escape

  Health—General

  Clean It Up

  Collars and Leads

  Health Hazard

  Rabies Advice

  Rabies—Airport

  Rabies—Landing

  Road Safety—Children

  Charley's Tea Party

  Child Cyclist—Right Turn

  Children Crossing (40s)

  Children Crossing (20s)

  Children Turn

  Pelican Pedestrians

  Supersafe with Super Ted

  Road Safety—General

  Dangerous Diamonds

  Dazzling Man

  Driver Fatigue

  Elderly Pedestrians

  Eyesight when Driving

  French Frank

  Horses and Cars

  How to Brake

  If Only

  Junction Parking

  Lane Discipline

  Let the Other Fella Know

  Look out for Bikes

  Mini Roundabouts

  Motorway Repair Sites

  Motorway Signals

  Overtaking near Junctions

  458

  Passing Horses

  Pavement Parking

  Ply Group

  Rear Seat Belts (60s)

  Rear Scat Belts (40s)

  Rear Scat Belts (10s)

  Safe Crossing

  Safe Parking

  School Entrance Markings

  Steep Hill Warning

  Traffic Shapes

  Tyre Pressures

  Tyre Safety

  Yellow Box Junction

  Zig Zag—Parking

  Road Safety—Motorbikes and Bicycles

  Bright Lights

  Helmet Advice

  Motorbikes—Stay Back

  Motorcycle—Overtaking

  Motorcycle Training (40s)

  Motorcycle Training (10s)

  Pedal Cycle Safety

  Pedal Cycle Song

  Road Safety—Pedestrians

  Bright Aware

  Car Wash

  Extra Careful

  Lot on his Mind, A

  Road Dog

  Road Test Pedestrian

  Toddler Safety

  Electricity and Building Safety

  Electricity—Sub-stations

  Electricity—Pylon

  Electricity—Tree Climbing

  Electricity—Fishing

  Keep Off Building Sites

  Safety—General

  BSI Chameleon

  Careless Fires

  Farm Machinery

  Farm Trailer

  Know your Tractor

  Slipping Ladders

  Safety in the Home

  Children and Bottles

  Children and Bottles—Paint Stripper

  Children and Bottles—Turpentine

  Children and Bottles—Danger Cupboard

  Children and Bottles—Danger Bottle

  Fatal Floor, The

  Flexes and Young Children (40s)

  Flexes and Young Children (5s)

  Hot Drink Child

  Right Steps, The (30s)

  Right Steps, The (10s)

  Water Safety—General

  Swim Song

  Swimming Lessons

  Youngsters Learn to Swim

  Holidays

  Absent Parents

  Bonehead Bather

  Coastguard

  Drink and Drowning (60s)

  Drink and Drowning (3m 20s)

  Drink and Drowning (10s)

  Lifejackets

  Look Out for Trouble

  Motorboat Explosion

  Rabies Advice

  Slipping Kids

  459
  Winter

  Rear Fog Lamps

  VAT
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) on 13 March,Official Report, column 61, if he is yet in a position to inform the House of the outcome of the discussions on European Community proposals for imposing value added tax on goods and clothing sold in charity shops; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  No. The Commission announced its revised thinking on indirect taxation in the single market on 17 May. It now accepts that some zero rates may be retained. This is clearly a step forward and in indication of our firm stance and we welcome it. However, the Commission's new proposals need much more clarification before we can take a view on them. Fortunately because changes to EC tax law require the unanimous agreement of the member states, there is no question of the Commission's proposals being forced upon us.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been decided to date in the discussions in the Economic and Finance Committee on the approximation of value added tax rates and the harmonisation of customs and excise duties: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 12 June 1989]: The Council of Economic and Finance Ministers have discussed these matters, which will be discussed again at a future ECOFIN Council. No decisions have been taken.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Regional Passport Offices
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider meeting the seasonal pressure of applications by the establishment of passport office facilities in Leeds for those seeking passports who live east of the Pennines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  There are at present six regional passport offices in the United Kingdom. Since the great majority of passport applications are usually dealt with by post, the location of the issuing office is not normally a significant factor in determining the speed of service. We shall, however, be reviewing the location and number of offices later this year. My right hon. Friend announced on 6 June in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) at columns 47–8 a number of measures which are being taken to ease the present problem of delays at the passport offices.

  Handel Telephone Line System
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effect problems with the Handel telephone line system will have on the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation's ability to activate the national network of air-raid sirens from July of this year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Improvements which British Telecom are making to the telephone network, which carries links 460
  in the warning system, will not affect the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation's ability to activate the national network of sirens.

  Electronic Surveillance Schemes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that a refusal to agree to participate in an electronic surveillance scheme will not be held to be a breach of bail conditions.

  Mr. John Patten
  During the trial schemes electronic monitoring will not be offered to defendants unwilling to participate: the question of subsequent breach of a bail condition should not arise.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the impact on the incidence of domestic violence or alcohol consumption of persons participating in electronic surveillance schemes.

  Mr. John Patten
  None.

  AIDS
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons who have been prisoners and subsequently released have been diagnosed as HIV positive;

  (2) how many prisoners currently in Her Majesty's prisons have been diagnosed as HIV positive.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 12 June 1989 the prison population of England and Wales included 63 prisoners reported as having been identified as HIV antibody positive. A total of 174 such prisoners had been released since reporting began in March 1985.

  Colin Wallace
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has concluded his consideration of the conviction of Mr. Colin Wallace for manslaughter in the light of evidence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice set out in the book entitled "Who Framed Colin Wallace" by Mr. Paul Foot, referred to in his written reply to the hon. Member for Brent, East of 15 May,Official Report, column 96.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are considering the material contained in Mr. Foot's book. When this has been carefully examined we will decide whether any action is called for in respect of Mr. Wallace's conviction.

  War Crimes Inquiry
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make a statement about the Government's response to the war crimes inquiry.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 8 June 1989 at column 215.

  Police Manpower (Derbyshire)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the figure for police manpower in Derbyshire in 1979; and what is the latest figure available.
  461
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is as follows:

  Police strength: Derbyshire

  Numbers

  31 December 1979

  1,757

  30 April 1989

  1,798

  Immigration
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for the use of DNA testing in immigration cases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I announced in July 1988 that DNA profiling appeared to be the most accurate available method of determining parentage in immigration cases, and that we would continue to accept the results of DNA tests commissioned by applicants themselves. Since then, many hundreds of cases have been satisfactorily determined on that basis. In the light of the experience we have gained from this, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have concluded that there is scope for introducing DNA testing into the entry clearance process more generally as a means of resolving relationship disputes. We have therefore set in hand the necessary arrangements with the view to the implementation of a Government scheme later this year in relation to first-time settlement applicants.

  DNA testing will not be offered as a matter of routine. We envisage that entry clearance officers will offer to arrange tests, with the consent of the applicant and sponsor, in cases where the relevant relationships could not easily be demonstrated by other means. If an applicant or his sponsor declines to undergo a test that would not of itself be a ground for refusing the application. But if an entry clearance officer is not satisfied as to relationship on the basis of the evidence before him, these arrangements will provide applicants with an opportunity to resolve the matter by taking a DNA test.

  DNA tests will be carried out, as at present, by independent scientific experts on a commercial basis. The level of the fee to be charged for application will need to strike a balance between not imposing too great a burden either on the individual applicant or on the taxpayer. My right hon. Friend and I will work up arrangements for financing a centrally-organised scheme on this basis.

  A number of cases have come to light where an applicant previously refused entry as a child (frequently after appeal to the independent appellate authorities), on the ground that there was no satisfactory evidence as to relationship, is now able to establish relationship by means of DNA evidence but is now over 18 and does not satisfy the requirements in the rules relating to the admission of adults.

  I do not believe that it would now be right to waive those requirements as a matter of course in all such cases, irrespective of the applicant's present age or circumstances. Previous decisions, including those of the appellate authorities, were taken in good faith on the basis of the information available at the time. There can be no automatic presumption that applicants now established as related after all should be admitted regardless of current circumstances. We have always distinguished between children, who are readily admitted to join parents here,
  462
  and adults, who will be admitted to join parents or relatives only in certain exceptional circumstances. Someone who was refused admission as a child when DNA was not available but has later established the claimed relationship should not by virtue of that fact automatically qualify for admission if the other qualification, namely childhood, is no longer fulfilled.

  I do not propose any change in the rules which would have the effect of blurring this fundamental distinction, which has been a settled feature of our immigration policy for many years. In many cases over-age applicants are likely to have settled into independent adult life and may also have married and established a family of their own overseas and I do not propose to waive the requirements of the rules in these cases.

  However, in the context of outstanding and future re-applications I am prepared to consider waiving the requirements of the rules in certain circumstances. To be eligible for such consideration a re-applicant aged 18 or over will have to show:

  (a) that he was refused entry clearance as a child on relationship grounds;

  (b) that DNA evidence establishes that he was, after all, related as claimed;

  (c) that he is still wholly or mainly dependent on his sponsor in the United Kingdom; and

  (d) that there are compassionate circumstances in his case.

  I shall not regard the fact that a re-applicant was refused entry clearance as a child on relationship grounds on any earlier occasion and was therefore unable to join his sponsor in the United Kingdom as satisfying the requirement that there be compassionate circumstances.

  In deciding whether to waive the requirements of the rules in cases which fall into this category I will consider all circumstances of the case including in particular:

  (a) the degree and nature of the dependency;

  (b) the extent and nature of the compassionate circumstances;

  (c) the re-applicant's present age and marital status;

  (d) whether other close family members, such as siblings, are already settled in the United Kingdom;

  (e) the lapse of time between the original application and the re-application.

  In considering the compassionate circumstances of the case, I will attach greater weight to compassionate circumstances relating to the situation of the re-applicant abroad than I will to those relating to the situation of his sponsor in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to lay before Parliament changes to the immigration rules.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have today laid before Parliament a statement of changes in the immigration rules in consolidated form. The main changes of content are the introduction of a visa requirement for nationals of Turkey and Haiti; curtailing the ability of visa nationals to switch after arrival from visitor to student status; and a provision relating to the status of husbands of women admitted for employment or business. The changes are due to enter into force with effect from 8 July 1989, except for the visa requirement for Turkish nationals, which takes effect from 23 June 1989. A full explanatory statement listing all the changes of content and the reasons for them is available in the Vote Office.

  Dogs
  Dame Janet Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to strengthen the law on dangerous dogs.

  Mr. Hurd
  Under the Dogs Act 1871, if a court finds that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control it may order the dog to be kept under proper control or destroyed.

  My right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have concluded that the penalties by which the Act is enforced ought to be strengthened. Subject to there being a legislative opportunity, we have in mind (i) giving the court a new power to order that the dog is destroyed by a person nominated by the court; (ii) substantially increasing the penalties for failing to comply with an order either to keep the dog under proper control or to destroy the dog; and (iii) giving the court a further power to ban the person against whom an order is made from owning or keeping a dog.

  Probation
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have for making a more concerted national network of probation service projects for offenders, in place of the current localised system.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 6 June 1989]: Steps are being taken to introduce more consistency in the work of the probation service and to disseminate good practice to all probation areas. National standards for the operation of community service orders were brought into effect in April, and all probation areas have been asked to develop action plans for the supervision of young adult offenders within guidelines issued by the Home Office. Ten probation areas have been invited to set up intensive probation projects which will be monitored centrally. Practice guidelines were issued to the probation service in 1988 on accommodation for offenders and the care for young offenders sentenced to custody.

  The Government are considering developments in the probation service in the light of proposals made in the Carlisle report on parole and the Home Office's Green Paper "Punishment, Custody and the Community".

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about British relations with eastern Europe.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Our relations with the countries of eastern Europe are as varied as the countries themselves. We naturally have the closest relations with those whose systems and values come closest to our own. We welcome the substantial steps towards freedom and democracy taken recently in Hungary and Poland.

  Cocaine
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts have been made to co-ordinate international action against traffic in cocaine.
  464
  Mr. Eggar
  We discussed the growing threat from cocaine with our European partners at an extraordinary ministerial meeting of the Council of Europe's Pompidou Group in London on 18–19 May. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, announced our willingness to host an international conference in London in 1990 on demand reduction in the context of the threat from cocaine.

  Anglo-Soviet Relations
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Soviet relations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In the last four years there has been a major improvement in Anglo-Soviet relations. We have developed a worthwhile political dialogue and many useful lower level contacts. But the recent expulsions have shown that serious problems remain in some areas.

  George Samoilovich
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Russian Government about their failure to grant an exit visa to the family of George Samoilovich.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Her Majesty's embassy in Moscow has asked the Soviet authorities for a full clarification of the Samoilovich family's position.

  Kurds (Asylum)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Iraq and Turkey concerning Kurdish asylum seekers.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have made no recent representations to the Iraqi or Turkish Governments concerning specific Kurdish asylum cases though no one can be in any doubt about our concern over human rights and the problem of Kurdish refugees.

  Namibia
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received with regard to the implementation of United Nations resolution 435 in Namibia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We receive regular reports from our diplomatic missions in Southern Africa and are in frequent contact with all those involved in the implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United Nations and South Africa regarding the timetabled withdrawal of South African troops from Namibia in keeping with United Nations resolution 435 on Namibia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The phased withdrawal of South African forces from Namibia is proceeding in accordance with the United Nations plan. We have urged the South African Government to ensure that this remains the case, and fully support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary General and his special representative.
  465
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the United Nations special representative for Namibia; and what was discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not recently met the United Nations special representative for Namibia. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met Mr Ahtisaari in Windhoek on 1 April and discussed with him the implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on the implementation of the settlement in Namibia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We welcome the recent progress on the implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence. Agreement has been reached on the repeal of discriminatory legislation and the declaration of an amnesty. The repatriation of Namibian refugees began on 12 June. South African forces are being withdrawn from Namibia according to the United Nations plan.

  M. Jacques Delors
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met M. Jacques Delors and what was discussed.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs when he last met M. Jacques Delors; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend met M. Delors at the Foreign Affairs Council on 12 June. I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend's reply of today to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) reporting the outcome.

  Austria
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to have discussions with the Austrian Foreign Secretary to encourage Austria to submit an application to join the European Economic Community.

  Mrs. Chalker
  It is for the Austrian Government alone to decide whether to submit an application to join the European Community, taking account of the economic and political obligations of membership.

  Middle East
  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the peace process in the middle east.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process following the visit of the Israeli Prime Minister to London.
  466
  Mr. Waldegrave
  Mr. Shamir's election proposals are a step forward. It is now for the Israelis to develop them as part of a process leading to negotiations on the basis of land for peace, and for the PLO to respond constructively.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Soviet involvement in the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We welcome all efforts, including those of the Soviet Union, to build confidence between the parties to the Arab/Israel dispute and to prepare the way for negotiations. Improved Soviet/Israeli relations can contribute to this.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to meet Mr. Yasser Arafat to assist the peace process in the middle east.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are certainly ready for further meetings with the PLO when they can serve a useful purpose. But my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has no plans at present for a meeting with Mr. Arafat.

  Sir Dennis Walters
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards peace in the middle east.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Mr. Shamir's election proposals are a step forward. It is now for the Israelis to develop them as part of a process leading to negotiations on the basis of land for peace, and for the PLO to respond constructively.

  Human Rights (Romania)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government about the abuse of human rights in Romania; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There has been no improvement in the Romanian Government's lamentable human rights practices. My right hon. and learned Friend raised this matter with the Romanian ambassador on 9 May.

  The leader of our delegation to the Paris Conference on the human dimension of the CSCE drew attention to Romania's deplorable human rights record in his opening statement on 31 May.

  EC Commissioners
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the British members of the European Commission; and what issues will be discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to meet the British members of the European Commission, but looks forward to maintaining contact with them and their fellow Commissioners.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations are held with the Government of Gibraltar about reforms within the European Community which may affect their future.
  467
  Mrs. Chalker
  We are in regular contact with the Gibraltar Government over the full range of EC matters which concern Gibraltar.

  NATO Summit
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on developments at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation summit.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statement to the House on 6 June.

  Palestine
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the role of the United Kingdom with regard to the achievement of Palestinian self-determination.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We shall continue to work for a just and durable solution to the Arab/Israel dispute which takes account of the Palestinians' right of self-determination as well as Israel's right to security.

  Argentina
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Argentina.

  Mr. Eggar
  We remain committed to seeking more normal relations with Argentina, while upholding our commitment to the Falkland Islanders. We believe it should be possible for both countries to benefit by working together on practical matters such as trade, air and sea links and fisheries conservation, leaving the issue of sovereignty, which most divides us, aside.

  Since 1982 we have accordingly taken a series of initiatives, but the Argentine response so far has been disappointing. Nevertheless our offers remain open, and will still be on the table when the new, President assumes power.

  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any message has been received by Her Majesty's Government from the new President of Argentina.

  Mr. Eggar
  No; in any case, the President elect Mr. Menem has not yet taken office.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the last meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The main item at the Foreign Affairs Council on 12 June was preparations for the Madrid European Council. A full statement on the Foreign Affairs Council is being deposited in the Library of the House today.

  London Information Forum
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the London Information Forum.
  468
  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on 19 May at column 329. The view then expressed that the London Information Forum was a success has been borne out by comments received subsequently.

  European Foreign Policies
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to have discussions with his European Community partners concerning the development of common European foreign policies.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave today to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). I next expect to discuss political co-operation matters with them during the European Council in Madrid on 26–27 June.

  Human Rights (Romania)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government about human rights abuses in Romania; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There has been no improvement in the Romanian Government's lamentable human rights practices. My right hon. and learned Friend raised this matter with the Romanian ambassador on 9 May.

  The leader of our delegation to the Paris conference on the human dimension of the CSCE drew attention to Romania's deplorable human rights record in his opening statement on 31 May.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the current state of the war in Afghanistan.

  Mr. Eggar
  It has long been our practice to stay in touch with a wide range of Afghan opinion and with other parties interested in Afghanistan. These contacts have confirmed our view that the resolution of the conflict requires the establishment of a truly representative Government in Kabul.

  Cocaine
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on progress in initiatives to curb the international cocaine trade.

  Mr. Eggar
  On 18 May my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a number of initiatives to help combat the threat from cocaine. These included provision of additional resources to United Nations drugs bodies, establishment of a customs training facility, targeting of overseas assistance on cocaine and the United Kingdom's willingness to host an international conference on demand reduction in the context of the threat from cocaine.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Brandon Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Ethiopia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Ethiopian Government reasserted control after an attempted coup by military officers on 16–17 May. They announced on 5 June their readiness to enter into unconditional negotiations on the situation in Eritrea. We regard negotiations to resolve internal conflicts, together with respect for human rights and the adoption of sensible economic policies, as pre-requisites for positive developments in Ethiopia.

  Syria
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning Britain's relations with Syria.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We could not consider restoring diplomatic relations without firm evidence that Syria had given up support for international terrorism.

  Single European Market
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts his Department is making in promoting the single European market.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our posts abroad are fully involved in promoting the single European market. British embassies lobby and report on single market measures and also provide a range of services to help British exporters make the most of the growing opportunities.

  South Africa
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet his South African counterpart.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has no current plans to do so.

  Anglo-Soviet Relations
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Anglo-Soviet relations.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Anglo-Soviet relations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In the last four years there has been a major improvement in Anglo-Soviet relations. We have developed a worthwhile and substantive high-level political dialogue. Contacts of all sorts have expanded rapidly, helping to break down the barriers of misunderstanding and distrust. But the recent expulsions have shown that there is still a long way to go before our relations with the Soviet Union reach the level of stability and mutual trust to which we aspire.

  Poland
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what encouragement and assistance he is giving to the process of Polish economic reconstruction.
  470
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what encouragement and assistance he has given to the round table talks in Poland and the process of Polish economic reconstruction.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We welcome recent political events in Poland. Economic reform and adjustment are possible only with the full consent of the people. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told General Jaruzelski on 10 June of the help we are ready to provide: we will support an IMF programme which underpins effective economic reconstruction; we will support rescheduling of 1989 debt payments in the Paris Club; bilaterally we will contribute £5 million per year over five years to provide training and advice to support progress towards democracy and a market economy.

  Decision-making
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, at the forthcoming European Council, the British Government will make any proposals for improving the quality of European decision-making.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No.

  Anglo-Israeli Relations
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Anglo-Israeli relations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Relations with Israel are good. We were glad to welcome Mr. Shamir to London last month and look forward to remaining in close touch with him on Arab-Israeli and other issues.

  Arab-Israeli Conflict
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest position regarding the proposal to hold an international conference to resolve the Israeli-Arab conflict and the Palestinian problem in particular; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  An international conference remains the most suitable framework for negotiations between the parties to the Arab-Israeli dispute. We are working to help establish the necessary common ground and confidence between the parties to enable negotiations to begin.

  Gulf States
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to visit the Gulf states.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so.

  China
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on developments in the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in the House on 6 June on developments in the People's Republic of China.

  PLO
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the attempts by the Palestinian Liberation Organisation to obtain a quasi-Governmental recognition by membership of various United Nations Organisations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have not recognised the "state of Palestine" declared by last November's Palestine National Council. Accordingly, we do not believe that "Palestine" satisfies the criteria for membership of UN agencies. We have advised the PLO against pursuing these applications.

  Treaty of Rome
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given by the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Communities to the activating of article 236 of the treaty of Rome.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No proposals under article 236 have been put before the Council since the amendment of the treaty of Rome by the Single European Act.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, when he next expects to meet his counterparts in the Council of Ministers; and what he expects will be discussed.

  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to attend a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council; and what he hopes will be discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will next meet his EC counterparts at the Madrid European Council on 26/27 June. The next Foreign Affairs Council will take place on 17/18 July. The agenda is unlikely to be set until nearer the time.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the outcome of his discussions with the Nigerian Foreign Minister.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I had talks with Foreign Minister Nwachukwu, held during the state visit of President Babangida, that covered bilateral issues and international developments of mutual interest, focussing in particular on Southern Africa. Our discussions were extremely friendly, reflecting the close and cordial nature of our bilateral relations.

  Tibet
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed Tibet with a representative of the Chinese Government.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 12 April at col 559.

  General Wladislaw Sikorski (Remains)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the 472
  Government have any plans to return the remains of General Wladislaw Sikorski to Poland in the foreseeable future.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told General Jaruzelski at the weekend that we had reconsidered this question. We felt the time was not yet right. We would continue to review the matter, in the light of the changing situation in Poland.

  Russian Diplomats (Expulsion)
  Mr David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members of the Russian diplomatic mission have been expelled from the United Kingdom since 1970 for engaging in activities incompatible with their status.

  Mr. Eggar
  Ninety nine; a further 69 Soviet citizens who were not accredited as diplomats have been expelled during the same period.

  Agni Missile
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent test launch by India of its Agni missile; whether the missile is considered to have a nuclear capability; and if he proposes to discuss the matter in his next discussions with the Indian Government.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have noted the successful test launch of the Indian Agni missile. As a founder member of the missile technology control region, we are obviously concerned about the proliferation of ballistic missiles. When the MTCR was established in April 1987, the partners urged all states to adopt the guidelines of the regime.

  There have been press reports that Agni is a nuclear—capable missile, although the Indian Prime Minister has stated that it is not a nuclear weapons system. We have no immediate plans for discussions on this matter with the Indian Government but we make our views on non-proliferation clear whenever a suitable opportunity arises.

  Immigration Appeals (Bombay)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is he average time from an appeal being submitted to(a) the date of it being set and (b) it being heard at the post in Bombay.

  Mr. Eggar
  The average waiting time from receipt of an appeal at the deputy British high commission in Bombay to the despatch of the explanatory statement to the independent appellate authority is 11 weeks. The subsequent wait for an appeal hearing to take place in the United Kingdom (not Bombay) is a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Disasters (Compensation Rights)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will take an initiative to achieve an international agreement under the auspices of the United Nations on safety and compensation rights in the event of such tragedies as the Bhopal disaster; and if he will make a statement.
  473
  Mr. Eggar
  Issues of safety and compensation for victims of major industrial disasters fall primarily within the competence of national legislatures and, in Europe, of the European Community. However, the UN centre of transnational corporations does work to promote safety and to minimise pollution and environmental damage; and the UN Disaster Relief Organisation has an overall co-ordinating role in respect of both natural and man-made disasters. The United Kingdom participates fully in the work of both these bodies and is currently consulting western partners with a view to putting forward proposals to enhance UNDRO's effectiveness. I see no justification for any further initiative in this field.

  WPC Yvonne Fletcher
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Libya concerning the payment of compensation for the death of the late WPC Yvonne Fletcher in 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We continue to take every opportunity to remind the Libyans of our claim for compensation for the life and career of WPC Fletcher.

  Daya Bay Nuclear Plant
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the light of recent events in the People's Republic of China, Her Majesty's Government will withdraw United Kingdom co-operation and export credit guarantees for the Daya bay nuclear plant being built in Guandong.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have no plans to do so. Contracts for the project were signed by the companies concerned some time ago and work is proceeding. In these circumstances we do not intend to suspend ECGD cover.

  Soviet Union (Emigration)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to clarify with the Soviet authorities whether those wishing to emigrate will in future require permission from relatives remaining in the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have repeatedly underlined our concern at the so-called "poor relatives clause" in the existing Soviet rules covering emigration. We have pressed the Soviet authorities to ensure that no provision of this sort is included in the new emigration law, which we understand is in preparation.

  Nuclear Arms
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to submit proposals on the full separation of civil and military nuclear facilities and attendant verifiable safeguards to the fourth review conference of the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to be held in 1990, following the initiatives made at the third non-proliferation treaty review conference in 1985.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The final document of the third review conference of the parties to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, held in 1985, recommended, inter alia,474
  "consideration of separation of the Civil and Military facilities in the Nuclear-Weapon States".

  We have no plans to submit proposals on this subject to the fourth review conference in 1990. However, the United Kingdom has made significant progress in the direction envisaged. In 1986, we brought to an end the co-processing of civil and non-civil materials at Sellafield. Inspectors of the European Atomic Energy Community have access to all civil material at Sellafield on a continuing basis.

  Anglo-Egyptian Relations
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Anglo-Egyptian relations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Our relations with Egypt are very close and friendly. The talks with the Egyptian Foreign Minister last week confirmed that our views of current middle east issues are very similar.

  Nigeria and Ghana
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Nigeria or Ghana before the end of the current year; and if he will make a statement on his plans for bilateral assistance to each of the states.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State plans to visit Nigeria for the next round of United Kingdom/Nigeria bilateral talks, dates for which we hope will be agreed soon. He has no present plans to visit Ghana. I shall be visiting Nigeria from 25–27 June to lead a delegation from the Energy Industries Council for a DTI-sponsored seminar on the hydrocarbon sector in Nigeria; and I shall be visiting Ghana from 27–30 June.

  In addition to our technical co-operation programme for Nigeria, we have pledged this year $100 million balance of payments assistance in support of Nigeria's structural adjustment programme. As part of our substantial programme of development assistance to Ghana, we have offered this year a further £20 million balance of payments finance, in support of Ghana's economic recovery programme.

  Cyprus
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he will make to secure compensation for those British citizens whose property was expropriated in northern Cyprus in 1974.

  Mr. Eggar
  We do not recognise the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" and have no formal dealings with its authorities. The British high commissioner in Nicosia nevertheless has informal contacts with Mr. Denktash and we are thus able to protect the interests of British nationals.

  Whilst we are not aware of any instances of the outright expropriation of property by those authorities, we are continuing to press for all outstanding claims for compensation from our citizens to be dealt with expeditiously and for the remaining difficulties facing those attempting to establish their freehold title to property to be resolved.

  Diplomatic Staff (Vehicles)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those British embassies whose ambassadors or consuls do not drive British manufactured motor cars as their official vehicle.

  Mr. Eggar
  With one exception, the official vehicles provided for heads of mission at British embassies and high commissions overseas are British-manufactured. In Addis Ababa, the ambassador has an EC-manufactured Ford Granada, which was purchased in Britain.

  There are five consuls-general/consuls who drive non-British manufactured cars. These are the consulates-general at Montreal (Chrysler), Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo (Chevrolet), and the consulates at Cape Town (Vauxhall Carlton) and Durban (Ford Sierra).

  It is FCO policy to purchase British manufactured cars where possible. However, for operational reasons, one head of mission and five heads of post around the world drive non-British-manufactured cars.

  Chile
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to assist the transition to democracy in Chile before the elections there.

  Mr. Eggar
  Both we and our partners in the Twelve fully support the continuing transition process in Chile. We welcome the satisfactory progress made this year towards the restoration of a democratic system in Chile. We regularly invite to Britain leading representatives of Chilean political parties.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the retention of battlefield and short-range nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government share the assessment made by NATO at its recent summit that for the foreseeable future there is no alternative to the Alliance strategy of deterrence and that this strategy requires a mix of nuclear forces, including Europe-based ground-launched missiles. The Government therefore welcome the summit's rejection of a third zero.

  Protection Vests
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates when personal protection vests for use by armed forces in general war were issued to armed forces in each country belonging to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is not readily available and it would involve disproportionate cost and effort to obtain it.

  Alcohol Consumption
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conveniently available figures over a recent 476
  convenient period of time he has (a) for excessive consumption of alcohol among service personnel and (b) for alcohol-related courts martial; and if he will set up an internal departmental committee to consider excessive alcohol consumption in Her Majesty's Forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Figures are not maintained for excessive consumption of alcohol among service personnel. Figures for alcohol-related convictions at courts martial for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988 are given in the table. Figures for 1989 are not yet available.

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Royal Navy/Royal Marines

  112

  110

  121

  Army

  136

  156

  145

  Royal Air Force

  34

  52

  54

  1 Figures relate to convictions where the charge was directly concerned with drink and exclude cases where the charge was for another offence.

  An existing tri-service committee on drug abuse prevention is the appropriate departmental committee for considering excessive alcohol consumption in the armed forces.

  Royal Navy Ships (Town Links)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Royal Navy ships which have been granted honorary freedom of their affiliated towns or cities.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Many Royal Navy ships have been granted honorary freedom of their affiliated towns or cities. However, no comprehensive list of such ships is held centrally and one could only be obtained at disproportionate cost and effort.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what links each of the following Royal Navy ships have, or are expected to have with towns or cities in the United Kingdom: (1) HMS Cornwall, (2) HMS Cumberland, (3) HMS Campbeltown, (4) HMS Chatham, (5) HMS Norfolk, (6) HMS Marlborough, (7) HMS Argyll, (8) HMS Lancaster, (9) HMS Vanguard, (10) HMS Victorious, (11) HMS Vengeance, (12) HMS Venerable, (13) RFA Fort Grange, (14) RFA Fort Austin, (15) RFA Resource, (16) RFA Regent, (17) HMS Trafalgar, (18) HMS Turbulent, (19) HMS Tireless, (20) HMS Torbay, (21) HMS Trenchant, (22) HMS Talent, (23) HMS Triumph, (24) HMS Swiftsure, (25) HMS Sovereign, (26) HMS Superb, (27) HMS Sceptre, (28) HMS Spartan, (29) HMS Splendid, (30) HMS Churchill, (31) HMS Courageous, (32) HMS Conqueror, (33) HMS Valiant, and (34) HMS Warspite.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The ship to town/city links are as follows:

  Ship

  Town

  HMS Cumberland

  Cumbria

  HMS Campbeltown

  Campbeltown

  HMS Chatham

  Medway

  HMS Trafalgar

  Lancaster

  HMS Turbulent

  Warrington

  HMS Tireless

  Rugby

  HMS Torbay

  Torbay

  HMS Trenchant

  Shrewsbury

  HMS Swiftsure

  Southport

  HMS Sovereign

  Derby

  HMS Superb

  Stafford

  477

  Ship

  Town

  HMS Sceptre

  Wigan

  HMS Spartan

  Rothesay

  HMS Spendid

  Plymouth

  HMS Churchill

  Redbridge

  HMS Courageous

  Preston

  HMS Conqueror

  Congleton

  HMS Valiant

  Scarborough

  HMS Warspite

  Hereford

  Royal Fleet Auxiliaries are not affiliated to towns or cities. Most of the remaining vessels are under construction and as yet have no affiliation.

  Paper Products
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spends on paper 478
  products; how much paper is consumed by his Department in an average month; what steps he plans to take to reduce the quantity of paper consumed; and if he has plans to purchase recycled paper for his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence, world wide, spends some £7·7 million per year on paper products. This equates to just under 900 tonnes consumption per month.

  All demands for paper products are closely scrutinised; in particular, there is a continuing review of forms usage within the MOD which has already reduced the consumption of printed material and will continue to do so.

  The MOD is already obtaining many stock ranges with a high recycled content such as envelopes, notebooks, file covers etc. More recycled products will he purchased provided that this does not affect quality, versatility and represents value for money.

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

NHS Policy Board: Composition
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider the omission of the chief nursing officer from the National Health Service Policy Board.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the composition of the NHS policy board reflects the desire of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health for independent advice about the determination of policies for the NHS. Members were chosen not to represent any particular groups of NHS staff but to bring wider management perspectives to bear on the setting of strategy for the NHS.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which I am afraid I do not find very encouraging. Is he aware that nurses comprise nearly half the workforce of the National Health Service? Is it not inept at best, and, I am afraid, insulting at worst, to exclude from membership of such a key policy-making body anyone with direct experience of nursing, particularly as a shortage of nurses will be one of the most acute problems facing the National Health Service over the next few years?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am aware of the fact that nurses comprise around half the employees of the National Health Service. However, the composition of the policy board is intended not to be representative of health service interests but to bring together a group of people who can provide a range of specific contributions to the board's role of determining strategy for the National Health Service. An essential nursing contribution to the management of the NHS will be made through the management executive.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, one reads in the newspapers that the chief medical officer is in attendance at the policy board by personal invitation. Will the Minister tell us whether he represents the interests of the nurses or the medical staff? Or would the policy board prefer not to have him there at all?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the chief medical officer is appointed to the policy board not as chief medical officer but for his personal attributes. He was appointed because of his wide and valuable experience in the spheres of epidemiology and public health, and not ex officio as chief medical officer.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that all the great professional organisations of our
1418
National Health Service want the chief nursing officer on the policy board? Why are the Government resisting the views of these top-flight specialists? Can we have some valid reasons and not the lame excuses that he has given up to now?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have given a perfectly good explanation. The policy board is not there to represent sectional interests. The role of the chief nursing officer, Miss Poole, is in no way diminished. My right honourable friend was surprised at suggestions that her position and authority were diminished by not being appointed to the policy board.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is genuine concern about the wisdom of the policy of total segregation of the administrative arm? Is there any valid objection in principle to having the chief nursing officer to assist in the administration? Surely one ought to be flexible about something regarded by people of all political persuasions as so important.
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is not total separation between the two. The policy board will agree with the chief executive of the management executive on the annual statement of key aims and objectives of the National Health Service. The executive will then report back to the policy board. The chief nursing officer will not be on the policy board; nor will anyone be on it ex officio other than my right honourable friend and his colleagues, the Permanent Secretary and the executive of the management executive. The deputy to the chief nursing officer will be on the management executive.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is all the difference in the world between being asked as an executive to comment on and explain how one will implement a policy which has already been formulated and being in on the formulation of the policy? It is perfectly arguable that one should not have people in a representative capacity, but one needs the knowledge in policy formation that only a professional nurse can bring.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the policy board is there to advise my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. He will also receive advice from the management executive. On the management executive we will have a representative of the chief nursing officer.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his answers clearly indicate that the nurses will have no input into this area? Is it not strange that the advice of three prominent industrialists seems to be more eagerly sought than the views of the nurses who are a tremendously vital component of the health service? Will the noble Lord take this back to the Government and ask them to reconsider the matter in the interests of the patients and all concerned?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my right honourable friend will certainly read what the noble Lord has

1419
said. He implies that this is a kick in the teeth for the nurses. It is not. No one could value the nurses or the nursing profession more than my right honourable friend, and no one could value more the advice which the chief nursing officer gives to my right honourable friend. He will continue to take her advice into account.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if that is the case and the Secretary of State takes her seriously, why is she not on the board? Can there be any logic in deciding to have the chief medical officer but saying that he does not represent the medical profession? One could ask—I shall not do so—in respect of all 18 members of the board, "who do they represent?" and "why were they chosen?"
From the exchanges on the Floor of the House this afternoon does the noble Lord not recognise that there is deep concern on all sides about this matter? Rather than simply asking his right honourable friend to note what has been said, will he put to him the views of the House? Although the noble Lord says that this was not intended as a slight to the nurses, can I assure him, as the noble Baroness has done, that all nurses take it in that light? Is it not a bad thing for the National Health Service that people who work for it and give it their dedication, commitment and skills should feel that they have been kicked in the teeth? That is how they feel.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have said that nurses are not being kicked in the teeth. I hope that the nursing profession will take note of that. I think the noble Lord possibly misunderstands the role of the chief nursing officer and that of the chief medical officer. Neither is there to represent professions; they are there to give a lead to the medical and nursing advice used by the department. The noble Lord knows that perfectly well.
As I said, the chief medical officer has not been appointed in that capacity; he has been appointed for the personal contribution he can make. The noble Lord will understand that I cannot comment upon the personal reasons for which the chief nursing officer in her own right, and not in her capacity as chief nursing officer, was not appointed. It would obviously not be proper for me to do so.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I find the Minister's reply most unsatisfactory. Who appointed the members of the National Health Service Policy Board without including the chief nursing officer when nursing is the most important—or, possibly the second most important—aspect in the National Health Service? It seems absolutely crazy.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my right honourable friend appointed the members of the policy board. He chose to appoint the chief medical officer but, as I have already stated, not in his capacity as chief medical officer.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the Minister is making the situation worse for himself. He says that the personal attributes of the chief medical officer get
1420
him on the board and that the personal attributes of all industrialists also get them on the board. However, he then says that the personal attributes of the chief nursing officer actually keep her off the board. Does he really mean that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is possible that I expressed myself rather badly. However, I am sure that noble Lords would not expect me to discuss the merits of individual candidates for the policy board in this way. As I said, the Secretary of State has expressed every confidence in the chief nursing officer. That is all that it is proper for me to say on the matter.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that nurses have a contribution to make to the policy of the National Health Service which is far broader than their narrower sectional interest? Indeed, they have an intimate acquaintance with the National Health Service and the needs of patients. It is a contribution which is complementary but distinctive from medicine. In view of that contribution to policy, would the Minister agree that there is a lamentable lack of expert opinion on the policy board?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept that there is a lamentable lack of expertise on the policy board. I stated that there was a representative of the chief nursing officer on the management executive and that that executive will feed advice through to the policy board.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord clarify one point? What part of the United Kingdom will the new policy board cover? Will it apply to England only, or will it apply to Scotland, England and Wales? Further, in the event that it covers only England, why then are Welsh and Scottish members on the board?
Lord Henley: My Lords, so far as I am aware the board covers the whole of the National Health Service. I am not, however, aware whether there are any Welsh or Scottish members on the board. But, as I said, the board is not there to represent individual interests.

ILEA: Disposal of Playing Fields
2.46 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they have taken and intend to take to prevent ILEA selling off playing fields, including 20 acres of Raynes Park, for building developments.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, each local education authority is responsible for providing playing fields for its schools and colleges and for decisions about surplus facilities. In the special circumstances of ILEA, the authority is required to obtain my right honourable friend's consent to

1421
disposal of property. This ensures the retention of sites required for educational purposes by an inner London borough. If, as was the case with Raynes Park, no borough needs the site, the ILEA is responsible for its disposal, and its future use is a planning matter for the local borough council.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is very wide interest in this playing field and others which are near our big cities, especially those near London? Further, as questions have been asked in both Houses from all quarters in support of some manner in which this open space could be held for recreation and for sports, would it not be wise to take up the suggestion made by the London Playing Fields Society in a letter to the Department of the Environment that ILEA playing fields, if not others, might be listed immediately under the auspices of the Government while the matter is sorted out? Is my noble friend further aware that it would be a shame if we did not reserve these spaces in highly built up areas or on the fringe of London for future generations? In that way we could get our young people off the streets and on to playing fields undertaking organised sports.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, we still expect that the playing fields will not go out of use as a result of the abolition of ILEA. However, the authority has declared a number of playing fields, nearly all located outside inner London, surplus to educational requirements. In the case of Raynes Park, all the inner London boroughs have agreed with the assessment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend explain why it is that the forthcoming dissolution of ILEA should suddenly make these playing fields surplus to requirements when they have been needed over the past few years?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it is because such fields will now come under the control of borough councils and those councils will have different plans. That means that playing fields in the future will probably be nearer to those who use them.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that we have a green belt policy which surrounds London with open fields—or at least to a great extent—are we really to abandon the open spaces in London itself as easily as this?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, we expect that playing fields will not go out of use. On the basis of borough bids for sports facilities, including those declared surplus by ILEA, it seems likely that more property will be brought into sports use as a result of its abolition.
Lord Pesten: My Lords, following yesterday's disaster on the playing fields of Headingley, will the Government take seriously the need to keep playing fields in existence as playing fields? Am I not right that, given the new Education Reform Act, the Secretary of State cannot prevent the London boroughs getting rid of playing fields? Following
1422
that, and in the hope that the noble Viscount has some good news, can he tell us whether the water sports facilities at Raven's Ait, which is an example of what I have in mind, will be preserved?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am not sure whether that comes under the heading of "cricket" or "rowing". The water sports centre at Raven's Ait to which I think the noble Lord is referring will no longer be used by ILEA and it applied to my right honourable friend for consent to dispose of it. It was given consent and has sold it to the Royal Borough of Kingston, which I understand is committed to retaining the site for educational and recreational use.
Baroness David: My Lords, is not the reason for ILEA having some surplus playing fields that the number of children in London has substantially declined? Is it not also because it has only £11 million for the maintenance of buildings, and it desperately needs the cash, of which the Secretary of State has kept it so short?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I believe that we are making a generality out of an individual case. I do not see many other playing fields going the same way as Raynes Park. ILEA owns some half-a-dozen large sports centres outside inner Landon. It has taken a number of them out of use because of the time taken to ferry pupils to them and has provided alternative facilities closer to the schools. ILEA has sought to find ways to keep such centres in recreational use and is in discussion with the outer London boroughs and sports bodies to that end. I hope therefore that few fields will need to be sold on the open market.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend consider listing Raynes Park, as we seem to have got into a muddle and are legislatively inhibited from taking action? Why not put a single-clause Bill through Parliament? He would have the support of all sides of both Houses. It would not take long and it would not slow up the Government's machine. It would be a simple answer. Future generations might benefit a great deal and thank us for so doing.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion which I shall of course pass on to my right honourable friend.

The Bank of England and Privatisation
2.52 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, and if so when, they propose to privatise the Bank of England.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government have no plans to privatise the Bank of England.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for making it clear that the Government do not at present propose to privatise the Bank of England and that there are limits to their

1423
privatisation programme. Does he, however, agree that the time is now ripe to re-examine the Bank of England's role, particularly with regard to its relative independence, especially in the light of the new conditions which will arise in Europe with the creation of the single market? While I accept that the Bank must inevitably act as the Government's agent in many respects, is it not desirable that it should have greater independence in other respects along the lines of the Federal Reserve Board and the Bundesbank?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is an interesting proposal which I shall put to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The differences between the Bundesbank and the Bank of England are perhaps not as great as they appear. I wonder whether the noble Lord would welcome the removal of ministerial accountability for the Bank of England were his proposals to be put into effect.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I welcome the Government's acquiescence in the validity of the Bank of England Act 1946, which gives them powers of general direction over its activities. Will the noble Lord clarify the position, particularly in view of the fact that the governor has the right of private audience with the Prime Minister? Will he tell the House what would happen if the Prime Minister were to give one set of directions to the governor and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to give a different set?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is, as the noble Lord suspects, a completely hypothetical situation and one that is unlikely to arise in the near future.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, could we take it that the reason why the Government do not propose to privatise the Bank of England is that they see no good reason to do so? If that is the case, does it represent a major change in government policy, given that they have never before needed good reason for privatising anything?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord. The Bank of England works well with its existing system. We believe that the Government have a clear resoponsibility to maintain the currency and avoid inflation through their monetary policies.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is it, however, on the whole the Government's view that the Bank of England should belong to the more independent group of central banks, including the two mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ezra and the Swiss Federal Bank, or that it should incline to the group of more supine central banks of which the Bank of France is the outstanding example?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I said in reply to an earlier question, we have no plans to change the existing situation; but, as before, I shall put those suggestions to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his original Answer will be welcomed by many people, not least when one considers the important role that the Bank of England plays as the nation's banker?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend welcomes my reply.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Barnett the Minister said that the Government believe that the Bank of England's present situation is necessary to counter inflation. When will it do so? Is it helped or hindered by government policy? As the inflation rate is now rising, does that mean that the Government will again use the Bank of England to raise the prime interest rate?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is going far off the Question. I said that the existing situation of control of the Bank of England works well and that the Government have a clear responsibility to maintain the currency and to avoid inflation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we on this side of the House welcome the Government's acceptance that in matters of the first importance public ownership is best.

NHS Research Needs
2.58 p.m.
Lord Nelson of Stafford Lord Nelson of Stafford asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the research needs of the National Health Service will be met by the new management executive, given the membership which was announced on 22nd May.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Government will shortly give a full and positive response to the Select Committee's Report on Priorities in Medical Research, which dealt with the research needs of the NHS. The response will explain how the management executive will ensure that the needs for research of NHS management will be properly assessed and reflected in the Department of Health's arrangements.
Lord Nelson of Stafford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which I must say I found rather disappointing. Are the Government aware that there is deep concern that research interests are not directly represented on the new National Health Service Management Executive? Is he also aware that the Medical Research Council supports such an appointment? In view of those facts, will the Secretary of State consider the early appointment of such a member to the National Health Service Management Executive?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am aware of the concern. The management executive recently appointed by

1425
my right honourable friend is considering how best the functions which my noble friend would assign to a director of research could best be performed within the executive and for that matter at all levels within the National Health Service. My right honourable friend understands the case for those functions being performed. One of the current directors might be given responsibility for research.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, has the Minister studied the evidence given to the Government by the Medical Research Council? It included the statement that,
"The proposals in the White Paper could lead to a fragmentation of the NHS, making it more difficult… to mount"
the necessary research studies. Does he recognise the extent of the concern and the fears expressed by his noble friend? Will he take steps to give a reassurance about this?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that I gave him a reassurance on about 19th April regarding the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to research, as set out in the White Paper. I reiterate that commitment, as expressed in paragraph 4.30, that we are fully committed to maintaining the quality of medical research. We shall provide the powers necessary for all parts of the National Health Service to continue to be involved with research and central funding for the service cost of that research.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it not quite extraordinary after such an assurance that no person involved in research has been appointed to the management board which we were discussing earlier? Would not that have been the logical way to give some indication of government support?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's worries. However, as I said, the management executive, as recently appointed, will consider the matter and see how it can best be resolved.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, following the report of the Croham Committee and the setting up of the Universities Funding Council, it was realised that the important area in the clinical medical schools was that grey area with the knock-for-knock principle operated between two departments of government? That was nearly two years ago. Can he confirm what we understand from the newspapers, that there has been no report from the senior civil servants about how the matter is to be resolved between the two departments of government? It is a matter of the greatest importance to clinical research in the National Health Service.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot confirm that but I shall certainly bring it to the attention of both my right honourable friends.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, in view of the publicly stated opinion of the Secretary of State that it is better to introduce management changes into the National Health Service without pilot experiments,
1426
and that it show signs of weakness if what we are doing is rushing off to get academics to advise us, do Her Majesty's Government think that research into the health services has any place at all in the National Health Service?
Lord Henley: Yes, my Lords, of course I do. I have stated quite clearly that Her Majesty's Government remain committed to research within the National Health Service.
Lord Peston: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, when he considers questions of research generally, whether he will convey to the Secretary of State the enormous importance which some of us attach to research in psychiatry? Will he convey to his right honourable friend how disappointed we are to hear that the general practice research unit at the Institute of Psychiatry at the Maudsley Hospital is no longer to be supported by his department, despite the enormous importance of its work?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall not be able to respond to the individual case which the noble Lord mentioned. However, I shall write to him and bring the other matters to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that your Lordships' Select Committee which examined the research needs of the health service received convincing evidence that, if expenditure on health service research, currently running at 0.1 per cent. of NHS expenditure, were to be increased to 0.3 per cent., improvements in efficiency and effectiveness could be achieved which would vastly outweigh the cost of that research? Does he realise—I am sure that he does—that many industrial concerns think that 5 to 10 per cent. of turnover is a reasonable amount to spend on research and development? Does that not back up the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, that an eminent and widely respected scientist should be appointed to the management executive of the NHS?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously the Government will deal with the suggestions of the Select Committee in their published response. With regard to the adequacy of research funding, the Medical Research Council, the main body that receives government grants for medical research, has seen its budget rise from £150 million in 1988–89 to £176 million in 1989–90. That is an increase of 12 per cent. The health department's own research budget has gone up from £28·5 million to over £35 million, an increase of 25 per cent.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree with me that aJl of us in this House are worried that there is no member with practical research experience in the top management tier and that many of us feel worried that the Government are relying purely on voluntary research contributions? At the moment voluntary research money far exceeds the Government's contribution to the MRC.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall convey to my right honourable friend the worries of the noble Baroness and of other Members of the House. I can only reiterate the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to research. I should also in passing say that we are very grateful for all the voluntary funds that go to research.
Lord Denham: My Lords, perhaps the noble Countess will forgive me intervening for one moment. We have spent 29 minutes on four Questions and perhaps the House might feel that after she has asked her question and my noble friend has replied, we might go on to the next business.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government have not learnt a lesson from the last National Health Service reorganisation after the Griffiths Report? In that reorganisation managers and chairmen of regional and district health authorities were imported from industry. They had no conception of what it was like to work within the National Health Service. Is it not time that the Government realised that the health service needs the experience both of the researchers and—to go back to the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox—the nurses rather than of people who have been in Sainsbury's, Marks and Spencer's or whatever?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not quite sure which question I am supposed to be answering. As regards the policy board, which was the first question, we have brought in the people whom the noble Countess mentioned for their business expertise and their strategic vision for the National Health Service.

Committee for Privileges
3.6 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, that the Lord Wilberforce be appointed chairman of the committee for the consideration of the petitions in respect of the Barony of Grey of Codnor.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Brewing Industry: MMC Recommendations
3.7 p.m.
Lord Kimball Lord Kimball rose to call attention to the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in respect of the brewing industry and to the problems which arise in connection with these recommendations; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am the grandson of a brewer but I have no knowledge of the industry beyond that which I suspect most of your Lordships have—namely, that we all know what makes up the best communities in Great Britain. I do not wish to argue my case on rural communities alone. I think
1428
also of groups within towns which hold together and live as proper communities.
What makes those communities work? It is the presence of the parson, the pharmacist, the physician, the policeman, the postmistress, the priest, the primary schoolteacher and the publican. The list is alphabetical; we all have our own priorities. Today I wish to look in particular at the fate of the publican. After all, pubs are popular. British pubs are popular and unique to Great Britain, I might almost say to England, because there is something special about the English pub. Pubs provide the opportunity for our population to enjoy their most popular form of relaxation after watching television.
The whole question of the public house has been of some concern ever since my noble friend announced that he was minded to accept Recommendation 12.129 of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. It suggested that no major brewer should be allowed to retain more than 2,000 on-licensed outlets. I wish today to follow this recommendation to its logical conclusion, and in so doing pay a special tribute to my noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who himself has been very keen to hold the debate. With the co-operation of noble Lords opposite we have succeeded in arranging a debate before my noble friend has made up his mind on the extent of the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission which he will ask the House to implement. I am very grateful for his assurance that he has come here today to listen before making up his mind. I am quite certain that imprinted on the heart of my noble friend is "1992"—rather like "Calais" in the case of someone else. That major factor has not been considered by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
We really must face up to the fact today that in 1992 we shall release the forces of competition throughout Europe. Only the fittest will survive. There will be emphasis on economies of scale within the European Community. We need strong brewing companies to survive in that atmosphere. To dismantle them at this stage makes no sense whatever.
We have won the argument in Europe on the harmonisation of excise duties. Some people may consider that unfortunate. However, the fact remains that Great Britain will remain the country with the highest rates of excise duty. Our neighbours in Belgium and France have a very low rate of duty and Italy has none. The single market requires the removal of all fiscal frontiers. If tax control at the border goes, what will prevent drink purchased at low rates of duty flooding into this country? This is no time to weaken the brewing industry. That point was omitted by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
If my noble friend is minded to implement the recommendation on the 2,000 pub limit, let us consider what will happen. The industry has only two choices. It can keep its pubs and sell its breweries, or it can put 22,000 pubs on the market at a stroke. American, Japanese and Australian brewers are waiting in the wings to buy up this country's brewing capacity. They understand about

1429
monopolies. In Australia one brewer has 98 per cent. of the home market. I do not believe that noble Lords are opposed to foreign ownership as such, if brought about by natural market forces. However, what I find quite unacceptable is that a Conservative Government should propose the dissolution of the brewers' estates and bring it about by regulation and interference.
A very charming letter has been delivered to all your Lordships. It was sent to the Clerk of the Parliaments who forwarded it to me. Mr. Burbridge-James, who lives on the South coast, states that, having fought for his country in the last war he invested £100 in each of the three major brewers which distributed beer in his area and whose beer he could enjoy. Mr. Burbridge-James states that, as a pensioner, the income from the holdings, which have grown in strength, is essential in maintaining his standard of living.
However, the important point in the letter occurs when Mr. Burbridge-James asks:
"What kind of society is it that will forcefully take what is legitimately mine and hand it over to others to pursue the same trade"?
We are not only here in Parliament to represent consumers' interests; we also have a duty to investors and savers in the industry. We seem inclined to forget that. In addition to the investors and the savers in the industry, we also have a duty to the people employed in the industry. Between Watford and Warrington, right across the centre of the Midlands, there are 27,000 brewery employees. I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, has some more up-to-date figures from the Transport and General Workers' Union. What will happen to the British hop industry if our breweries are taken over by foreign companies?
The other alternative to the brewers retaining their estates but selling their breweries is that 22,000 pubs will be put on the market at a stroke. That will be a major loss to many communities in terms of losing a social centre. Many pubs are economically non-viable; they are just social centres. It is no good thinking they will remain pubs. The property developers will descend on them like vultures. Attractive corner sites in city centres will not remain as licensed premises; they are far more valuable for property development. We shall lose a very large number of Britain's public houses if the second alternative occurs.
It is interesting that although these drastic proposals are made in the report, no one has found any real abuse of power. The report states that 75 per cent. of public houses are owned by 6 per cent. of brewers. However, that is hardly a monopoly when the biggest brewer of all only owns 22 per cent. of all pubs. There is no monopolistic situation. Despite what I am afraid I can only describe as a rather crude attempt last week by the department to try to split the united front that has been retained by the six major brewers, the 52 regional brewers and the 150 micro-brewers, they are all absolutely convinced that the alternative of selling off the 22,000 pubs and enforcing the 2,000 public house limit is unacceptable and unworkable.
If we are to look at what might be done—we must try to find a solution to the problem—there is some
1430
merit in what the Consumers' Association stated in its evidence to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission concerning the maximum level of local concentration of public houses in the ownership of any one brewer. The association suggested that no brewer should own more than one-third of all full on-licences in any licensing district. Licensing districts are roughly equivalent to English constituencies. There are virtually 600 English constituencies; there are 630 licensing districts.
If my noble friend is thinking along these lines, he should recognise that it would be an extraordinary step to ask a major public company to divest itself of its assets. If that were done voluntarily, I hope my noble friend realises that it would be a major concession on the part of the national brewers. It must be seen as such, and it must be the end of the saga. There is no question of coming back in two or three years' time and saying that not enough has been done.
I know that my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing will deal with the problem of the tie and how it affects all the clubs in this country. I can only say that if I could borrow money at 3 per cent. today and also have a choice of borrowers at that rate, I would appreciate that the tie is no disadvantage to any commercial operation. Many of us are very pleased to see how so many clubs in this country have been modernised and made habitable as a result of the brewers' tie.
In conclusion, I must refer to the dissenting report from Mr. Mills. It is rather typical that this is not mentioned in the summary of the commission's report, nor is it listed on the contents page. I think we should look at that report. It seems to suggest the sensible way through this problem. Mr. Mills states that we must look at the limited independence of some tenants and at the imposition of ties when properties are sold. He feels that those elements have worked to the detriment of the public interest. To alter that primary legislation it will be required to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
I think all of us in the House would support the recommendation that in every public house there should be one guest beer. I mean a genuine guest beer and not an imported foreign lager. I believe we would all like to see a firm recommendation that every brewery should allow into all its public houses at least one local British brewed ale, and not just a lager which carries with it all the expenses of extra advertising. I think we would all agree that those are sensible recommendations that should be implemented.
The report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is massive. It has 470 pages; it is as big as the London telephone directory. However, at no point does the commission state that excess profits are being made. It does not even say that the industry is inefficient; in fact it says that it is reasonably efficient.
If we go ahead with the recommendations contained in the report and they are implemented in full the result will be fewer public houses, the disappearance of pub tenancies, serious financial difficulties for our sports clubs, declining amenity

1431
standards, fewer United Kingdom owned breweries brewing English beer and less choice of beer at higher prices.
I agree with the final paragraph of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission minority report:
"Warts and all, imperfections and all… the consumer [has] reasonable value for money and reasonable choice. The … industry should be left to change and develop as it is already doing".
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, I thank my noble friend for raising this subject today. I welcome the opportunity to hear further views on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report.
My noble friend said that I had 1992 in my heart. The former Queen of England who claimed that they would find Calais written on her heart after she died lost Calais. We have no intention of losing the battle for 1992.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission made its report to me in February of this year. It was the result of an extensive investigation lasting two and a half years. The report was published on 21 st March. I said then that I accepted its conclusions. I stand firm on that. I have not so far heard anything to persuade me that there are not substantial public interest detriments which need to be remedied.
As to the recommendations, although I said when the report was published that I was minded to accept them, I indicated that I was ready to listen to views from any interested party about precisely how the recommendations should be put into effect. I was open to representations, both public and private before reaching a final view. We have now had the best part of three months' consultation since the report was published. This is bound to be an unsettling period for the brewing industry and for publicans. From their point of view the sooner firm decisions are reached the better. But it is also important that our decisions, when they are made, should be the right ones.
The representations made have taken many forms. Your Lordships will have seen advertisements in the campaign sponsored by the Brewer's Society. These have suggested that the effect of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommendations would be the closure of many pubs and a reduction in consumer choice.
However, we have also seen the subject debated by pub-goers themselves. My department has received a number of letters from them. In the last analysis they are the most important of all because the issue we are debating is how best the consumer should be served.
Last week the Haig Whisky company published the results of a survey of pub-goers conducted by MORI. According to the press release announcing the results of this survey:
"Most regular pub-goers want the monopoly of the big brewers broken… The majority are in favour of the Government implementing the Monopolies Commission Report. Only a third
1432
of adults surveyed opposed the idea that the major brewers should be required to sell off some of their pubs.
"84% said that the landlords should have more freedom to introduce more beers. The majority of consumers thought that the recommendations would be good for the traditional British pub. 66% said that the choice of beers would increase, and 60% that the quality of pubs would increase."
These results confirm what the Consumers' Association found in its own survey, which was conducted in May 1987. The conclusions of that survey were given in evidence to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Two-thirds of respondents agreed at the time that all pubs should be allowed to sell draught bitter from more than one brewer. Only 7 per cent. disagreed with that proposition. Furthermore, there was overall agreement that pub prices were too high compared with supermarkets and off-licences. 61 per cent. agreed and only 11 per cent. disagreed.
I am sure that your Lordships will also have seen references to the article on prices of soft drinks in the June edition of Which. The Consumers' Association reported a restricted choice of soft drinks in many pubs and prices which could be higher than those for alcoholic drinks, on which, of course, duty is paid. The Consumers' Association agreed with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that these are detriments which result from the operation of the tie. The public are often obliged to buy such products from the brewers rather than being able to shop around for the best range and prices.
Publicans themselves, when questioned in opinion surveys, show substantial support for many of the MMC recommendations. On 27th May the newspaper The Publican gave the results of its own survey of publicans:
"Around 90 per cent. of publicans want greater security of tenure under the Landlord and Tenant Act, want to see an end to the non-beer tie, and want a choice of guest draught beer".
Over the last few weeks my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs and I have listened carefully to the views of a great many people who have come to see us to discuss the report. We have had a number of meetings with the Brewers' Society. We have also met representatives of individual brewers, either at their own request or through the offices of their Members of Parliament. We have heard from the National Licensed Victuallers' Association, which represents many licensees, the Consumers' Association, the Campaign for Real Ale, and others.
As a result of those extensive consultations I believe that a number of matters are now clear. I believe that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was clearly right that there is a need to increase competition in this industry. It was also clearly right in recognising the important part that regional and local brewers have to play in maintaining diversity and choice in the supply of beer.
We have already made plain in a Written Answer in another place last week the importance the Government attach to the role of the regional and local brewers. We said then that our intention was that certain measures should apply to the national brewers but not to other brewers. We had in mind

1433
particularly the requirement to allow tenants to choose a cask-conditioned guest beer; the abolition of the tie on low-alcohol and non-alcoholic beers, ciders, wines and spirits and soft drinks; and any measures to reduce local monopoly.
I agree with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's conclusion that the position of publicans needs to be strengthened so that they can more effectively meet consumer preferences. There are two main ways in which that role of publicans can be enhanced.
First, I am glad to say that there seems to be consensus among the main parties that tenants' security of tenure should be increased by bringing them within the scope of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 as the MMC recommended.
However, there also seems to be agreement that certain further steps recommended by the MMC would not be appropriate. The MMC recommended that the parties to a tenancy should not be allowed to contract out of the provisions of the Act, as is the case with other business tenancies. It also recommended that brewers should be required to incorporate certain standard provisions into tenancy agreements. These would cover such matters as assignability of tenancies and restrictions on the brewer's ability to take back premises at the end of a tenancy for its own use or for redevelopment.
It is generally agreed that these further provisions might in the long run make tenancies unattractive and should not be pursued. The National Licensed Victuallers' Association itself has indicated to us that it accepts this.
Secondly, tenants have a role in improving choice. One of the ways they may do this is through the guest beer proposal. Fears have been expressed, and were expressed by my noble friend this afternoon, that this proposal could result in a flood of heavily promoted, mass produced brands, which would not contribute to a genuinely greater choice. We are clear that we should specify that the guest beer should be cask-conditioned; that is to say, a real beer of individual character. That accords with the views of most publicans on what they would wish to offer, and we believe that it will be welcomed by regional and local brewers.
In relation to the national brewers, I am still considering the position. Here I do have concerns about the extent to which a few dominate the market. The six national brewers account between them for 74 per cent. of brewer-owned tied houses, 75 per cent. of beer production and 86 per cent. of loan ties.
I should like first briefly to consider the issues in relation to the national dominance of the major brewers and to put before your Lordships' House some of the ideas which have been canvassed to address that national dominance. First, let me raise one dimension of the problem which particularly concerns me. That is the question of local concentration and local choice. In a number of licensing districts, one or other of the national brewers owns over a quarter of all the pubs, in some districts over a third of all the pubs, and in a few districts over half.
1434
It is hard to see that that situation can encourage vigorous competition. Choice at a local level is important to the individual consumer. I am inclined to think that no major brewer should be allowed to tie more than a limited proportion of the pubs in any local authority area. Any excess pubs should be sold to owners who are not already dominant in that area. I would welcome your Lordships' views on that important aspect of the position held by the national brewers.
Secondly, let me turn to how increasing competition and choice might be addressed at the national level. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommended that no company with brewing interests should be permitted to own more than 2,000 on-licensed premises. The MMC believed that an approach of that kind was necessary if the detrimental effect of the vertical tie were to be remedied, and the market freed.
The MMC also recommended that there should be a ban on all future loan tying, whereby the brewer provides financing on favourable terms in return for a commitment by the publican to purchase drinks. The MMC correctly identified that loan tying can be used to reinforce a dominant market position akin to ownership of the pub. But I am reflecting further on that proposal because it seems to me that there are circumstances in which loan tying may be acceptable. I have in mind, as an example, the position of members' registered clubs, where I see an argument that they should be free to enter into loan ties if that is the collective wish of the members on a free vote. In those circumstances, I should however want to ensure that loan agreements do not unreasonably lock borrowers in to a particular supplier. They should be free to change the loan and supplier easily if another offers better terms.
I see many attractions in the overall approach recommended by the MMC and I have received many representations in its favour. Many who know the industry well believe that direct action of that kind is necessary to ensure that vertical integration is broken down and the market opened effectively.
However, I have also received representations on a variety of alternative approaches designed to achieve the same basic objectives by different means. One interesting suggestion that has come from a number of sources is that competition and choice would be greatly increased if the national brewers were required to operate their property portfolios above a threshold on an independent arm's length basis. In other words, each of the national brewers would be able to retain its property investment but would lease on an arm's length basis to independent tenants, groups of tenants or separate companies the management of its pubs over and above the threshhold. Those independent managers would be free to negotiate their finance and their supplies of drinks—including beer—from wherever they chose, from the most competitive source.
That idea was first canvassed by CAMRA, but has also been proposed by the Wolverhampton and Dudley Brewery, which has set out its ideas in a document now placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. The idea has been canvassed in outline only. Philosophically, I find it attractive. It

1435
may offer an opportunity to remedy the detriments resulting from vertical integration which the MMC have identified, without forcing property disposals. If a way could be found of opening the market to much greater competition, through the creation of many more free houses and the breaking of the grip of the national brewers without forcing property disposals, I should welcome it.
The meetings that have been held with the Brewers' Society over the past few weeks have been very valuable, and I am grateful to the society for its help in conducting the first round of exchanges. We announced by Written Answer in another place the conclusions that we have reached in the light of those meetings. However, I fear that I cannot now continue discussions with the Brewers' Society when we turn to the highly market-sensitive question of the MMC's divestment proposal. I am sure that there is no one in this House who will not recollect that I have the responsibility for the working of the market and that these are matters which affect not only the responsibilities of the major brewers but the entire working of market-sensitive situations.
I have therefore decided that the next stage is for me to discuss the MMC's divestment proposal—and the alternatives to it—with the national brewers. I shall be meeting them shortly for private discussions on those market-sensitive issues. I wish to assure all noble Lords that I shall be ready to hear constructive proposals from them which address the central issue of the extent of the vertical tie. But I should say at this stage that it is for them to persuade me that the arm's length proposal or any other option can offer a remedy as effective as the MMC's own recommendations.
We are holding this debate today and it is a welcome opportunity, for I should welcome your Lordships' views on this or any other alternative remedies provided that they meet the basic criteria; namely, that they address the dominance of the national brewers and the grip on the market that they have secured by vertical integration.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, for raising the matter and to the Secretary of State for being so frank in his open-mindedness about the possible solutions that noble Lords may wish to recommend to him.
I have read part of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. I cannot say that I have read the whole thing. I hope that there are many noble Lords in the House at the moment who have read the whole thing and will therefore be superior to me in knowledge. But from what I have read this is an extremely distinguished report from the commission. As noble Lords will know, it was my noble friend Lord Wilson of Rievaulx who set up the Monopolies and Mergers Commission when he was President of the Board of Trade. He will agree that the report is one of the most distinguished that the commission has produced in its 40 years, if my arithmetic is correct.
1436
As the Secretary of State has said, there is no doubt that the MMC is right in saying that there is a complex monopoly. That is nothing new. In 1977 the Price Commission identified exactly the same problem. In 1969 the MMC identified the same problem. However, we must note that, although the problem was identified 20 years ago, nothing has happened up to now. I should therefore say to the Secretary of State that we on these Benches intend to hold him to his word that he will now do something about it. The Government simply cannot shelve the whole thing and do nothing.
The noble Lord started off by saying that when the report was published he was minded to accept its conclusions. I am not sure whether or not he was minded to accept the recommendations. There may have been a semantic problem. He then got a blast from the Brewers' Society and I thought somewhat changed his tune and said that he preferred to ask the Brewers' Society: "If the MMC recommendations are wrong, have you got anything better?" That is rather like asking turkeys how they like to be roasted for Christmas. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, replied that the turkeys would rather not be roasted at all and would like the situation to continue as it was before. However, I must say to him that, so far as we are concerned and from what the Secretary of State has said so far as he is concerned, that is not an option.
Beer and related products sold through the beer trade, if I may use that generic expression, are not simply commodities sold on the basis of price. I think that the noble Lord and I agree on the problem of defining the differences between services, amenities and the product. As the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, said, there is no doubt that the pub offers not just a commodity at a certain price but also an amenity to go with it. So to try to consider the whole area on the basis of price is in my view not correct.
No doubt there are some noble Lords who will say that market forces and prices must rule, but I disagree. I find it difficult to understand how anybody can come to a conclusion that a certain price is unjustified. To me that is a very odd type of argument, given that in what we are dealing with there is a strong service element.
This is a very complex industry and therefore the report was complex. The recommendations were summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, the most important point being the 2,000 on-licence outlet limit of ownership. Those recommendations were complemented by other recommendations referred to by the Secretary of State; namely, the loan tie, the product tie in terms of the guest beer, the terms and conditions of tenancies and, although he did not mention it, the wholesale price list publication, which I shall come to in a moment.
Apart from the noble Lord's initial reaction, the Government have responded in rather a curious way in a Written Answer given in another place to what was obviously a planted Question. The Government have now said that regional and local brewers need the full exclusive tie. We agree with that and believe that it is an important step forward. They have agreed that the Landlord and Tenant Act should be extended to cover tenancies in pubs. We agree with

1437
that. They have agreed that the guest beer, in so far as it applies now to the big six, should be a real ale and not a lager—and so we avoid the Fosterisation of Britain—and we agree with that.
They have agreed that there should be abolition of the tie on non-beer products. We agree with that, while noting that the block exemption—the EC regulations 1984/83—which allows the beer vertical tie excludes other ties. It has been in full operation since 1st January this year and, if the tenants have greater security of tenure, they will by virtue of that regulation be able to break what I believe has been a tie imposed by the brewers to date. But I agree that that is a matter of opinion; it is a question of whether the tenant has sufficient initiative to understand the scope of his rights. But security of tenure is definitely needed in order that that provision can take its full effect.
What is now left? For the big six—because we are talking about the big six only—wholesale price lists are to be published with discounts and discounts should be related to volume—justifiable quantity discounts, or whatever they may be. It seems to me that at this point we are entering rather difficult territory; namely, that of the Robinson Patman Act of the United States which, as the noble Lord will know, was part of the 1930s scene and requires that discounts should only be related to quantities or to some justifiable or provable reason for the discount. It has caused enormous trouble in the United States.
I am uncertain—I put it no higher than that—as to whether this is the right moment to embark on a major piece of competition legislation such as the Robinson Patman Act in the United States. Legislation would be required not just for the beer trade but right across the board and I am sure that the food manufacturers would have their say should the noble Lord try to draft any Bill along the Robinson Patman lines. It is not that I am opposed to it. I simply believe that this is not the right place to start along that road.
So far as concerns tenant security, as I said, we agree that the Landlord and Tenant Act should be extended. We also agree with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that the tenants should be given a reasonable opportunity to acquire premises if the brewer who owns the premises sells. Obviously there has to be market value. One cannot have any preferential right for the tenant other than that he might have first refusal if the brewer decides to sell. We also agree that there should be some restriction on repossession of tenanted houses, in particular where the licence is lost. I think that those are elements where a code of practice, statutory or otherwise, or an order would be welcome.
I am afraid that we part company with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the loan tie. I think that the Secretary of State is also moving in our direction on this point. After all, membership clubs survive by low interest rate, high quality, high volume loans from the brewers. Speaking as a banker, if I may do so for a moment, I cannot conceive that any bank in its right senses would lend the same amount of money to a membership club at the same rate as a brewer would do it. Of course, the member of the club would be paying the interest rate
1438
directly through the product price. Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly true that there are many membership clubs that would go out of business if they were required to go to the banks and if the brewers were not allowed to lend them money. So we would certainly keep that provision unless the Government can come up with some magic scheme which would allow cheap finance to be offered to membership clubs as a substitute for the cheap finance that they are receiving from the brewers.
The next argument concerns the tie on the brewer-owned on-licence outlets. This is the argument to which the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, addressed himself primarily. To my mind there are several difficulties with what the Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommends. Under certain circumstances if major brewers in the big six (and two have threatened already to do it) instead of divesting themselves of their retail outlets divested themselves of their production, it would create a situation in which there were strong retailers who had command of their own brands and who would be able to say to the producers, "We will specify the quality of beer and what specific gravity we need. You will deliver it here, there and everywhere". They would have enormous power. It would seem like Tesco, Sainsbury's and Marks and Spencer rolled into one so far as the countervailing power of the retailer is concerned. So we are doubtful about that and, if that is the noble Lord's intention, we think that he certainly must extend his order—and he has powers under Section 56 and Schedule 8 of the Fair Trading Act to do so—to cover not just those who have brewing interests but anybody who might own more than 2,000 on-licence outlets.
I do not know how the noble Lord will be able to draft such an order. Having looked very carefully at the section and schedule that I mentioned, it seems to me that to draft something along the lines of the text of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and at the same time to say, "But nobody else can do it", is a task which would stretch the imagination of the most fertile mind of parliamentary counsel.
I therefore come back to a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. There may well be difficulty and confusion between ownership and the tie. I welcome very much what the noble Lord the Secretary of State said about the possible alternatives. There are a number of alternatives that I believe he should pursue. I should like to see no limit on the ownership of licensed outlets; but no company, brewing or other, may tie exclusively more than 2,000 outlets either by virtue of ownership—that is, through management or tenancy—or by loan tying or by selling to another owner with a product tie. I should exclude from those 2,000 outlets the membership clubs which I have just described and which I believe need a loan tie. Outlets above that ceiling, as the noble Lord has said, could be run as a property portfolio. There would be a restriction upon the ability of the owner to impede other brewers and other parties, whoever they may be, from selling their products into that outlet if they can match quality and price.
A number of people have worried about the enforcement problem. I simply say this. Each major

1439
brewery of the big six would have to nominate with the Office of Fair Trading those outlets which it wished to tie exclusively. That list would be open and available for all to see. Outlets which were not on that nominated list—and it could be regulated by local conditions and monopolies, as the noble Lord said—would be open to anybody. Although there is no legal mechanism to bring such a proposal under the 1956 Act, under a Section 56 order I believe that he could achieve this. It would be, in effect, a restrictive practice to stop any other organisation selling to outlets not on the nominated list. Anybody can come in and, if it can match price and quality, open up the normal nominated list to what is effectively a free trade. If that is adopted, there is no need for a guest beer. The guest beer is already allowed to enter. However, if the noble Lord wishes in the 2,000 nominated outlets to have a guest real ale, I certainly would not dispute that as a possibility.
On disposal of outlets, we do not have the problem which the noble Lord has outlined. It would be very difficult for markets to cope with thousands of premises being dumped on the market, rural pubs being shut down, or whatever it might be.
All that I have suggested would be a major revolution in the brewing industry. If the Government were to adopt this solution, we would ask them to declare a moratorium for, say, three years on mergers, acquisitions and re-arrangements in the industry. As a result of the order that the Secretary of State would make to implement this solution and to deal with the complex monopoly conditions revealed in the MMC report, nobody would know quite what the financial effects on any given company would be. It would be in those circumstances wrong to have any radical change in the structure of the industry. If this solution were adopted, it seems to us to be a good basis for the industry up to 1997, when the block exemption on the vertical tie—the exemption from Article 85—comes up for review. If we go along the lines that I have suggested, I believe that in 1997—if Sir Leon Brittan in his great wisdom were to decide that the vertical tie is no longer in the interests of the Community and that a block exemption should not be continued—the brewing industry would be in a much better condition to face that problem as and when it occurs. Therefore the industry must be prepared for that.
I conclude by saying that the Government are absolutely right to reject a solution to the problem based on pure theology of market forces. Market forces would demand that we scrap the licensing system. I do not think that the Government, ourselves or anybody else will scrap the licensing* system. We reject market forces. Some noble Lords who will speak today will recommend the pure market force argument. I hope very much that, with the conversion of the noble Lord to industrial policy and clear industrial planning, he will reject those arguments. I am also glad that the noble Lord, having been converted to industrial policy, does not live anywhere near Downing Street because I am afraid that he might receive unwelcome attention from the
1440
current Rasputin and a handbagging from certain people who believe that market forces ought to overrule all sensible ideas that he might put forward for this industry.
It is welcome that we can have this dialogue at least in the same language. Up to now the noble Lord and I have had dialogues but we seem to be entering into dialogues from a wholly different theological position. I am very glad—it is a matter of the profoundest relief—that he is willing to talk our language. If there are flaws in the suggestions that I put forward I should be grateful if he would point them out and speak to them in the language that he has used this afternoon. If not, I hope that he will take them as a basis for a good way forward. However, if he simply rejects them without good reasons purely because they come from the Labour Party, CAMRA or somebody else, I am bound to tell him that he will be turning this into a partisan issue, and it should not be a partisan issue. That is something that all noble Lords will wish to avoid since to do so would be damaging both to one of our great industries and to the consumer.
3.57 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, for giving us this opportunity to talk about these proposed radical changes to the arrangements for the brewing industry in this country. I listened to his speech most carefully. I found it most persuasive. However, I should be interested to hear—perhaps the noble Lord and I can talk outside this Chamber—about the problems that he would foresee if these recommendations were to be implemented in the drive against alcohol abuse. Although I may have on occasions criticised the industry for not contributing more in certain areas, one has to commend their initiatives to enhance social responsibility with regard to drinking alcoholic beverages in this country. It is the lack of social responsibility which causes so much abuse today regarding drinking in particular in public places. I mention the commitment of the industry to publicise the new strength requirements to improve awareness of drinkers of the alcoholic strength of different drinks. It has been an area of confusion. More people are becoming aware of which drinks are strong or weak. That is helpful.
The Scottish Whisky Association funded a conference on Young People and Alcohol in February 1989 which involved a major survey of attitudes—a very important issue—and the behaviour of young people. The Brewers' Society's Wheelwatch Campaign with regard to drink driving and the attempt to promote the availability and sale of drinks which were safe for those who have to drive was important. This year £25 million is to be spent on the development and marketing of low and non-alcoholic beers. That again is encouraging. The trade has co-operated very strongly in tackling alcohol-related disorders, violence and so forth, in pubs through better management of premises. Does the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, consider that management would suffer in the light of these new recommendations? There has been a great sense of

1441
responsibility in making sure that young people do not have access to drinks in pubs although the subject of identity cards for that purpose causes some heated debate.
These are very positive developments. I should like to commend the Government's involvement in next week's National Drinkwise Day on Saturday. It is to be launched by the Government. Several companies have come together on this day to produce posters relating to alcoholic strengths and the promotion of low alcoholic brands. I am very happy to say that the major companies in this country which sell alcoholic drinks through supermarket chains have very responsibly produced sensible leaflets for the guidance of customers about their products. It all helps to create the new social responsibility that I have mentioned.
All these matters are very positive. However, whatever the changes in the future, or whether we maintain the status quo, I should like to feel that this energy towards combating alcohol abuse and allowing people to drink with enjoyment and responsibility continues. I should like to be assured that should we see radical changes this will be kept up. The urgency was highlighted by the Government when they commissioned the survey on drinking in England and Wales in 1987 which revealed that some 5 million men and 2 million women were drinking over a level considered to be safe. Between 1·25 and 2 million men and the corresponding 0·25 million women were drinking amounts each week which would certainly damage their health. When I talk about health being damaged, I mean that for a man that figure is 50 units per week which, if someone is drinking lager, is an incredible amount of liquid with a very high content of alcohol.
It means that the bulk of alcohol-related harm—violence, accidents, illness, absenteeism and a chain of other harmful results and also drink driving, one of the most important—is not confined just to a minority of chronic abusers of alcohol but extends quite widely through the drinking population. The young people are especially vulnerable and have become more so over the last 10 years. Recent reports have shown that about four in every 10 young men under 24 drink over what is considered to be a sensible level which would not be damaging to their health over a long period, and one in every 10 young men drink very dangerous levels indeed—well over 50 units.
In addition, I hope that the industry, whatever way it goes and whatever decisions the Secretary of State takes, will be reconvening the National Alcohol Forum, a joint initiative which unfortunately foundered through disagreement over chairmanship and polarisation of attitudes over licensing laws which we discussed in your Lordships' House through the Licensing Bill. The re-establishment of that body would be complementary to the excellent work of the Wakeham Committee and could put forward recommendations to that committee.
The Government and the drinks industry will obviously commission further research on drink driving, particularly aimed at the hard core of older drivers. It seems nowadays that there is a
1442
concentration on young drivers perhaps because their offences are more colourful and horrifying. But there is a hard core of older drinkers who in almost every case are people who repeatedly offend as drink drivers. They have a drink problem and need treatment. That must have careful consideration by the Government and I am sure that will be taken on board by the Wakeham Committee.
Perhaps the Government and the brewing industry should also commission and encourage more local and regional activities providing advice and counselling for problem drinkers. By and large to date the whole picture of the drinks industry has been encouraging. I begin to think that much of my criticism and comments in the past have been somewhat carping, but we must keep up the pressure. If the National Alcohol Forum is reintroduced, we shall be able to establish more accurately what are the factors which will make it possible for us to identify the relationship between alcohol and a variety of illnesses and deaths. It is that which is most alarming.
Like my colleagues on these Benches, I am a committed European and upon our entry into the single European market in the 1990s we do not feel that our culture will suffer in any meaningful way, any more than we feel that the use of pubs and part of our culture will change, either. I hope that people will begin to drink with more responsibility all through the age and social groups with more enjoyment and responsibility. Even if we do not become a country of cafes like France and Italy, I hope that at least we shall begin to drink with responsibility, care and enjoyment as people do in those countries in those cafes.
4.5 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Truro: My Lords, my interest in the supply of beer was at its height when I married a brewer's daughter. It was a profitable deal. When exchanging visits with my in-laws, empty crates in my poor curate's abode were invariably replaced by full ones.
Earlier when studying theology at the university my concerns had been a little more catholic. At that time a sum of money had come the way of the junior common room. A termly meeting had to decide how to invest it for the common good. There is a record in the minute book in that common room to the effect that Mr. Mumford threw in the whole weight of the Church on the side of port.
It would be an exaggeration to claim support on quite such a scale for the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, but I know that at least three bishops would have liked to take part in this debate. Among several areas of concern, what stirs me most is the effect of the recommendations on community life in the rural areas, particularly in thirsty Cornwall. It is in the country more than anywhere that public houses surplus to the proposed figure of 2,000 per brewery will be under threat. How are they to keep going?
I listened with very great interest to the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I shall want to study them with special care. Also, I shall

1443
listen eagerly to any response from the Secretary of State to those rather detailed and fascinating proposals. For the moment I find myself still wanting to say that few tenants will be able to buy the pubs that become available. Other commercial interests may develop the properties for rather different purposes. Private individuals will probably acquire them for houses, including housing for resale, I dare say. Certainly, because of the size of the properties concerned, they will be sold at prices beyond the capability of most local people.
Those pubs which remain may be taken over by international brewing chains which would alter the arrangements for supply and might even serve to create more monopolies. We have to assume therefore that many local pubs will disappear. I find myself comparing this phenomenon to the dissolution of the monasteries. I dare say I ought to avoid special pleading, but one is tempted to wonder where the bellringers will repair after their strenuous exercise and how hard-pressed vicars and recalcitrant church wardens will resolve their differences. Your Lordships may care to exchange the adjectives.
There has been a fruitful partnership between church and pub for many centuries, though I suppose that little bit of social history did not weigh heavily with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in its report. I am sure it cannot be at all controversial that your Lordships will want to take careful note of the threats to local community life. The pub is a peculiarly English institution, and not even the Cornish would deny that. It is a centre of village life which has served the social needs as nothing else has, including the Church itself. I doubt whether the MMC's great motivation is to fill the churches; nor would any right reverend Prelate on these Benches want that at the expense of the pubs.
I have to hand a press statement which was issued yesterday by the National Association of Local Councils. With its permission I shall quote from it:
"Whereas in the 1950s it was an unusual village which did not have its own school, church, post office, village shops, garage and regular local bus service, the changes in the manner of life and the economic and social pressures of the last three decades have meant that most small villages are now finding themselves without a school or garage, sharing a minister with three or four neighbouring parishes so that the church is in use only one Sunday in three or four, with at best a part-time post office and, if no post office of any kind, then probably no village shop".
That is a most powerful statement from the association.
Nowadays people move about from village to village according to taste and need. Therefore it is all the more important that the few remaining facilities should continue to be available and be stable at that. Furthermore, by the provision of many pubs drink driving is kept to a minimum because of the shorter distances involved. Many pubs in the country are run at a loss. However, it has been the policy of the larger brewers to maintain them as a public service. That is not to say that purveyors of beer are in the charity business. No doubt the millions of visitors to the countryside take their custom to the more profitable town pubs during the rest of the year. I
1444
dare say that many country pubs are kept going by the "townies".
Whether profit-making and viable or not, pubs are a vital part of rural life. If they go, village communities will be impoverished even further and the whole nation will suffer. I do not believe that the case is made for the arbitrary reduction of the power for good exercised by the large brewers of this country. Six of them own 75 per cent. of the pubs and that is not excessive when brewing is compared with other sectors. Certainly they provide more freedom of choice than is so in other nations where the monopoly base is smaller. The future of 20,000 public houses is at risk. Is it really a wise risk to take?
4.13 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I would not be out of place in thanking the right reverend Prelate for his contribution to the debate. One normally compliments a noble Lord on his maiden speech. His looks belie the fact that he may be reaching retirement and coming towards the end of his time to speak in this House. When that happens we shall be most sad. We hope that before he finally retires he will make many more sensible, down to earth and humane speeches.
The Church, the pub and the other institutions that the right reverend Prelate mentioned are essential to village life. The club is as important in built-up areas. He spoke about the villages in his dioceses, but the same is true of tower-block areas. There people badly need a community centre where they can exchange views, enjoy themselves and relax. Pubs have come to fill the gap left by the church halls.
I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. He made a most constructive speech which I should like to study more closely. I am not sure that the threshold should be 2,000 pubs, as was also mentioned in the admirable speech of my noble friend. It is not an inflexible threshold and, as was stated in the leader in Monday's Financial Times, 5 per cent. of the outlets is extraordinarily low. It may well be that the number should be flexible and higher in certain areas, and I hope that it will not be written in tablets of stone.
I compliment the Secretary of State on approving the investigation. The 30 people who undertook it carried out a long and loaded task. It is a formidable undertaking merely to produce a 500-page report. I only wish that there had been more people on the committee with knowledge and longer experience of consumer and service markets, but there is never a perfect mix.
It is not generally appreciated that this is the fifth investigation involving the brewery industry in recent years. The first MMC investigation was reported in 1969. It also proposed a threshold and a number of untied pubs above that, but that was rejected. I am not sure what has changed to make the proposal more acceptable, but it should be reconsidered. In 1969 there was an investigation by the Prices and Incomes Board of which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was later chairman. In 1977

1445
the board made a second investigation into beer prices. The report was published on 29th July and I note that the noble Lord took up his appointment on 1st August—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. At that time the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Board was the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, whom I am glad to see in his place.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not refer to the noble Lord, but I did not see him take his seat. I was exonerating the noble Lord, Lord Williams, because he moved into office two days after the report was tabled.
The EC has considered tied loans and whether, in the case of the main breweries, there was a restrictive practice, thereby reducing competition. After lengthy consideration it reported that at least for the next 15 years, ending in 1997, there was nothing to discourage tied loans. On the whole the practice was to be approved of. I hope that my noble friend will take that into account.
Clearly after five investigations action is called for but not to the extent that has been recommended. Some of the major recommendations appear to be dangerous and will destroy an aspect of life in this country without replacing it with anything constructive.
I have always understood that the definition of a monopoly is 25 per cent. of the market. Not one of our brewers has 25 per cent. of the market; the biggest is Bass, with 22 per cent. Ipso facto, there was no case for an examination under that general ruling. I cannot help feeling that, after five investigations, when we come to a decision we should leave the issue alone for a while and tackle some other monopolies. For instance, the BT monopoly arranged by the Government had 97 per cent. of the telephone lines, while they allowed Mercury—now Cable and Wireless—to compete to the extent of 3 per cent. Five years have passed since that agreement was reached so perhaps that case should be examined. Even the BBC has been secured—and I thoroughly approve because it is a public service—and it has 50 per cent. of the market with the approval of the Government. Therefore, the size of a company's hold on the market has not a dominant effect on governments. I understand that the next examination will be into petrol companies, and we shall await the outcome.
It is worth remembering that, although six brewers in this country hold 75 per cent. of the market, that is a much lower figure than for any of the EC markets. After 1992, if nothing is done, that 75 per cent. will be subject to futher reduction by competition, particularly from the big competitors in Germany, where they make some very good beer, and Denmark. Therefore, if nothing is done, that 75 per cent. is likely to be reduced.
I see that in Chapter 1.27 it is recommended that no new tied loans be allowed. My noble friend and others have already dealt with the public house side of the matter. I hope that, if that recommendation is reconsidered, it will be considered sympathetically
1446
so that not too much is not torn apart and dismantled.
I want to deal with the clubs, and I believe that I have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on this. There are 34,000 clubs, of which about half have tied loans at this moment. The working men's clubs close to the Labour Party and the Conservative constitutional clubs are two large elements with tied loans. There are 3,600 working men's clubs in all, almost all of which have tied loans, and there are 1,500 of our clubs, the majority of which have tied loans.
I remember very well that when I was adopted for North Hendon we had a constitutional club. I do not believe that it was entirely on my side despite its name. However, we would have been absolutely lost if we had not had a tied loan from a local brewery.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have said earlier this afternoon that I can see an argument why members' clubs should be free to enter into tied loans if that is the collective wish of the members on a free vote. That is a point which is accepted.
Lord Orr-Ewing: I am delighted to receive that reassurance. I felt that if that was endorsed from this side of the House as well as from the other, it would be written in tablets of stone and my noble friend would not in any way draw back from it.
There are also British Legion clubs and service clubs, most of which have tied loans. Then there are the sports clubs. There are 24,000 of those. The nice thing about these tied loans is that they are extremely flexible. They are given at a very low percentage—I believe it is 3 per cent. To obtain such a loan from the bank the rate is 15 per cent. However, if you do not receive the service that you want, you can change your brewery, or if a windfall allows you to pay off the loan you can do so or if there is a better loan at the bank you can switch to the bank and pay off the loan. However, it is interesting to note how much these loans have helped the sporting clubs. That covers golf, tennis, squash, local rugby football and soccer clubs. Those loans are of inestimable value and much of what has happened in sports clubs is a result of tied loans. Therefore, I hope that that will never be at risk.
The construction of floodlighting, which is an advantage for outside sporting clubs and which obviously extends the hours for drinking, can be financed through a loan. Cricket nets can be erected. I only wish that they had had their effect on the English cricket team because we might have done rather better. It is not a condition of the loan that it shall be spent on the clubhouse or on internal facilities.
Of course there are valid points and my noble friend is right to take them into account. We shall eventually debate them in the House when the Bill comes forward. However, I hope that the criticism about the threshold which has arisen and which is likely to arise as a result of this debate and about the tied loans—I was glad to receive the assurance of the Secretary of State—will be taken into account.

1447
I believe that we owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Kimball for initiating this debate. It is, as the Secrtary of State said, absolutely essential that we should kick this ball around and discuss it before any action is taken which would make fundamental differences to the pubs, clubs, restaurants and other such facilities in our community that make life worth living in this country.
4.24 p.m.
Viscount De L'Isle: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Kimball and the right reverend Prelate, my prime concern in considering this report is the future of the British pub. Of course I do not ignore what my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing said about clubs, but, as the right reverened Prelate said, in the country and also in the town the pub is a social institution of prime importance. What worries me is that the MMC does not seem to have addressed itself to the social importance of the pub; nor does it connect, as did the right reverend Prelate, the practice of breweries of maintaining marginally profitable or even unprofitable public houses in some areas as being a valuable social contribution.
If I understand it, the object of the commission's report is to create effective competition and, if necessary, narrow the margins of the brewers. Brewers are not benevolent institutions per se. They consider their own interests. If their margins are narrowed apart from the selling off of the nationals' 22,000 pubs, they will close those pubs which are least profitable. The academics, if it is academics who wrote the report, have rather purloined the word "detriment" as being a pure economic term. But what about the detriment to those villages or to those side streets in a neighbourhood where the pub is so important? Is there not a detriment in that case? Whatever the consumers may have told my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham about their preferences for change, I have no doubt that when their pub is closed they will know who closed it; it will be the Government. Therefore, I ask him to be extremely careful that he does not introduce a series of measures which deprive people of their community centre, which more often than not lies, in the pub.
As has been pointed out, competition in other places such as the United States and Australia has led to concentration in a very few breweries and I believe that that is the overall trend. It is because the present system of vertical integration has preserved our pubs that I believe it should be handled with very great care.
I cannot believe that it would be a wise course of action to force on to the market within a limited period 22,000 public houses. I agree that a great many of them would be likely to fall into the hands of property dealers who would change their use. As we know, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out, there is already a limited number of outlets. I do not see that limit being raised very easily since that depends on the attitude of the licensing justices all over the country and they have been very careful
1448
about issuing more licences. Therefore, unless we are very cautious we shall see an overall and serious net reduction in the number of pubs available to the people, and with that I see a lack of choice not only as to place but also as to the number of beers available because there exists real competition for that.
As has already been mentioned, 1992 is close upon us. I am sure that if we were to fragment the industry, as might happen if all the proposals and recommendations were accepted, there would be plenty of European brewers and others who would very much like to pick up the fragments—and this at a time when the brewing industry must summon up the blood to meet European competition.
Of course if some of the nationals are deprived of and have to sell so many of their public houses, they may, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, go over to the retail trade entirely or they may keep some of their houses and devote some of the resources garnered from their sales to promoting more and more national beers. I do not think that the recommendation, although I do not dispute it, of one cask matured guest beer will blunt the force of insistent promotion which is now so prevalent, particularly in America, and which will be available soon through sattellite and other means all over Europe.
Therefore, I do not discount the competition that will come. I fear that against that competition our pubs will suffer in numbers again. Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State once more to pay attention to this point. The deprivation not only of rural communities but urban communities and neighbourhoods of their public houses through the onslaught of competition will be ill-received, and properly ill-received, if countervailing care is not paid to ensuring that as far as possible these outlets are preserved for the use of the people.
4.31 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords—
Lord Pender: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Kimball for initiating this debate. Beer always has a good run, and rightly so. I believe that there have been 13 reviews of the industry in the past 20 years.
It has been encouraging to read during the past few days of certain reassurances to protect the regional and local brewers. We await with interest what my noble friend the Secretary of State has to say at the end of the debate. Of one thing there can be no doubt: the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has ensured lasting recognition of its report through the words, "2,000 pubs". The pub is an integral part of life. People do not go to pubs just for the beer. Pubs are a meeting place for adults second only to private dwellings. They provide a social centre and a line of communication. Their demise could lead to a number of social problems. I strongly believe that the English pub—in particular, the village pub—is very much part of our heritage and a major tourist attraction. To put this in jeopardy when people are enjoying more leisure time and when

1449
tourism is one of the best growth areas of our economy would seem ludicrous.
The main proposal that brewers be restricted from owning more than 2,000 pubs would constitute the most fundamental change ever proposed to the British pub. The ramifications of implementing the restrictions would be destructive to the industry. The issue has inevitably proved the favoured liqueur for today's debate. I confine my remarks to the proposals concerning public house tenants. These are serious in that they threaten to destroy the tenanted system which has served the British public so well for so many years. On the surface, the proposals purport to improve the lot of the tenant. In reality, they would tip the present delicate balance between tenant and brewery landlord so far away from the brewery's interest that no brewery would in future offer its pubs for tenancy. The economic balance would be weighted heavily towards breweries managing their own pubs rather than offering them to a tenant.
What brewery would readily lease a pub to a tenant in the knowledge that the brewery could thereafter never again select a tenant for that pub? Their rents could never be increased, except by application to a court. Over one-quarter of the beer trade would be lost to the brewery as the tenant could buy in a "guest" beer from any other supplier. The brewery would no longer be assured of a market for its low alcohol beers—the fastest growing sector of the beer market. My noble friend the Secretary of State dealt with that point. No wonder so many of the tenants who have thought through the implications of these proposals have rejected what would, at first sight, appear to be of great advantage to them. If these proposals are implemented there will no longer be any tenants left to reap the benefit.
Then again, the MMC had intended that these proposals would benefit regional and local brewers. The large majority of brewers have looked closely at the implications and profoundly disagree. Their view is that these proposals represent the greatest threat that the regional brewers have had to face since the war. The proposed undermining of the tenancy system will hit the regional brewers harder than the majors as the majors will in any case be left with virtually no tenancies if they are forced to sell 22,000 pubs.
If we are to have a distinction between national, regional and local brewers then that distinction has to be identified by the number of houses or annual output. It will be interesting to have a government comment on that. Possibly the number of houses is a better identification, particularly if at a later date there are further negotiations with Brussels as to a brewer's ability to tie whether through a loan or ownership of the outlet concerned. It seems to me that it is quite possible that the total number of tied outlets that might be allowed by the Commission could be in the region of 500 to protect the smaller German and Belgian brewers who are faced with a similar situation as ourselves if the tie is abolished.
4.38 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Pender, for jumping up at
1450
the same time as he did. Perhaps I may say to noble Lords, as the only woman to speak in this debate, that I use pubs but I do not drink beer; so, if anyone is calling, it will be a gin and tonic!
I wish to emphasise the aspect about which I perhaps know a little more than noble Lords who have spoken—the urban areas, and particularly the rural areas. I do not think anyone has yet mentioned the fact that in rural areas that have tourist attractions the pub is part and parcel of the attraction for tourists. If a pub is just outside the area it is a place that is visited by them. I believe the Secretary of State is keen on extending tourism and the service trade, so that can be linked with the friendship and peculiar village atmosphere of some pubs.
In comparing the general standard of pubs today with those of 20 years ago one sees that the change is significant. Normally, today's pubs have extremely good decor. They come in various period styles, such as Victorian, Tudor or moderniistic. All have carpeted floors and comfortable seating. We should also accept that it was perhaps the brewers, through their pubs, who broke down social barriers. I can remember when the bar was where the lower classes went—many of them Labour supporters. There was also the smoke-room, which was a bit upper class. The brewers not only got rid of that; they also got rid of sexism. They abolished the gents-only parts of pubs. Perhaps the brewers were a little in advance of some other organisations in breaking down social barriers.
We have seen a change in beer drinking over the past 25 years. My knowledge comes from the Birmingham-Wolverhampton-West Midlands areas where 25 years ago dark mild ale was popular. Public taste then moved to lighter beers. Another change took place when bitter beers became popular. We now see yet another change in consumer taste. Lager is now a popular drink in pubs. There is also this new drink called LA. When I first heard somebody call for it I thought, "I don't know what this kind of beer is. It must be some quite fantastic thing that is coming from the States". However, I recognise that that is low alcohol beer, which of course is to avoid perhaps a tough driving penalty for driving under the influence of drink.
We see not only a change for male drinkers. Women's tastes have changed quite considerably in pubs over the past 25 years. The biddy in the corner drinking her glass of Guinness has gone, and we see the younger element choosing spirits or perhaps from the great variety of wines that are available. I know that the noble Lord made some points about the loan tie, and the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, went into detail about that. I hope that the noble Lord the Secretary of State will make quite sure that he gives serious consideration to the loan tie and free trade outlets.
Over the past 18 months I have been chairman of Motability in the Midlands. Our task is to raise charitable moneys for adaptations to be made to cars for people who have the motability allowance. I am amazed at the high standards in the clubs today. I go to many of them to receive cheques that have been raised for charity, and I see the discipline that

1451
is exerted in what were called working men's clubs and are now called in the main social clubs.
It is important for the Secretary of State to understand that there is keen competition between all the brewers to get this trade. I have firm information that every time the subject of the renewal of a contract comes up it has a high profile on the committee agenda of all clubs, because they are going to make quite sure that they get the best deal from the brewers competing for them. That point is perhaps covered by a kind of free vote of the people.
The thriving clubs that we now have are providing not only for male drinkers but are providing all kinds of facilities, sports facilities, and particularly places for families, which is much better than having children stand outside public houses. They are now with their parents, and the clubs are providing these kinds of facilities. We have talked about 1992. All European countries allow free trade loans, so there is no reason why Britain should be different in that respect.
The report goes into prices in the big brewers' houses. But are prices too high for the drink consumer? The beer drinker would obviously answer that he thinks that the tax on it is too high. In fact, it is the highest in Europe. The noble Lord the Secretary of State always gives us percentages, but this does not mean a solitary thing to me. I remember that I was on a committee of one woman and three men. They had to fill in a form on how many women comprised the committee and they said 25 per cent. I became the 25 per cent. woman after that. Percentages really do not mean very much.
The brewers would argue that, despite the punitive taxation, we in this country have beer prices that are among the lowest in Europe. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report conveys the fact that prices will come down if its proposals are put into operation. There is no reasoning in the report to show that prices will come down. I was very gratified that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, gave the example of British Telecom because I had that down as well. We have gas, electricity, and water. It is no good these people telling us that prices will come down because we know full well that they do not, and the consumer is now used to that.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, I think I can do no more than to comment on the paper submitted by the Wolverhampton and Dudley Breweries, which is a brewery prominent in the area that the noble Baroness was discussing. They say on the second page that competition indeed is responsible for low prices, that it is only in the Midlands where committed regional brewers have been able to use that weapon competitively, and that it is no accident that prices in those areas are below the national average. I assure the noble Baroness that that was something which the report actually showed. I commend that paper to the noble Baroness. Indeed, it contained many of the proposals that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, advanced in his speech.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I commend to the noble Lord the Secretary of State the note of dissent, paragraph 42:
"It is interesting to note the valid point made in the report that in some regions of the country—such as the North-West and the West Midlands"—
that is the part that I know best—
"the practice of regional brewers in maintaining their wholesale and retail beer prices at significantly lower levels than the national brewers has been effective in keeping the prices"
down.
"in other words, the existing competition works".
That is the dissenting report. I think we are level pegging now.
Will the changes lead to more consumer choice? Most public houses have at the moment a wide choice of bottled beers, including those of all the various brewers. The issue really comes down to the availability of different draft beers. Perhaps I may say something about guest beer. "Guest beer" is a wonderful phrase. It is really your competitors' beer. It is like asking Marks and Spencer to take in things from Littlewoods or British Home Stores and put them on one side and say, "Let us see what we can do". That is what a guest beer really is. It is putting your competitors in the same position that you are in.
There is a saying that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. People who use pubs and drink beer choose the pubs that serve the beer they like to drink. They choose. It is a choice that they have. They go around. I know that it is much more difficult with village pubs, but in places like London, Birmingham, Manchester and other cities people can choose where they want to go, and they choose according to their taste.
If the noble Lord the Secretary of State wants to take on the brewers he ought to recognise that the consumer has to have a free choice, and that free choice must be the pub that he wants to use and the beer that he wants to drink. It should not be a government edict. This is the Government who talk about freedom of choice. What the Minister is saying this afternoon is, "I just want to curtail that freedom". It does not go down very well coming from a freedom-loving government.
Perhaps I may now give my Birmingham plug. Everybody in the House knows that I never make a speach without relating it to the West Midlands or Birmingham. I make no apology for that. We have seen the demise of two large Birmingham breweries—Ansells, which was in the constituency that I represented in another place, and Davenports. We are left with one brewery, which is partly in Birmingham and partly in Sandwell, an adjoining borough. The closure of the brewery at Cape Hill which belongs to Mitchells and Butlers would be catastrophic. The brewery has undergone a major modernisation programme costing £11.5 million. Only last year it was given a major award by Business and Industry for the thoughtful development of the site and employee considerations.
If the brewery had to close many of its tied houses and was allowed to retain only 2,000, there would be serious repercussions. It has been in Birmingham

1453
for more than 100 years. It is part of Birmingham life and is one of the large employers along with Cadbury, Kendrick and Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds. Mitchells, which joined with Butlers, became one of these family businesses. It does exactly what the Secretary of State likes people to do. It is business in the community. Mitchells and Butlers has become part of the Birmingham scene. It plays a full role in all kinds of sponsorship—sport, the City of Birmingham orchestra and charities—and other projects which the city promotes. One would hesitate to see destroyed a great tradition started by a Birmingham family.
The Secretary of State said that people are being consulted. The duty of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was clear. It was based upon responsibility for the public interest. However, the Secretary of State has another serious responsibility—to maintain employment. I have had a long report from two of the largest trade unions involved with the industry. It says that nearly three-quarters of the labour force in the Midlands—this refers not only to Mitchells and Butlers but to all the other brewers in the area, including those in Burton-on-Trent—could lose their jobs. This applies not only to the breweries but to the outlets that would have to close down.
The report says that wages and conditions of service in the brewing industry, particularly pension rights, are considered to be good. If the Transfer of Engagement Act had to be put into operation many of those benefits would be lost. The West Midlands is moving out of recession. We make a special plea to the Secretary of State not to aggravate the position by bringing about the closure of breweries in the West Midlands.
The note of dissent makes the point that the recommendations of the commission are more drastic than necessary. To some extent the report arrives at conclusions that can only be described as blinkered. I echo what other noble Lords have said. No other country has an institution comparable to the British public house. It must be preserved.
4.55 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Kimball for initiating this debate and thereby giving us an opportunity to consider the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission which took about two and a half years to produce and which some of us have been having difficulty digesting since its publication in March. I should like to say how interesting I found the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, and how closely in tune I felt with everything she had to say.
I should declare an interest as a director of J. W. Cameron & Company, a regional brewer in Hartlepool and a subsidiary of the Brent Walker Group. I also own one public house. I can therefore perhaps be said to be firmly in the camp of the regional and perhaps even of the local or micro. I hope this afternoon to address the wider implications of the MMC report as it affects the whole industry.
1454
Brewing and our pubs are a unique and much loved part of our national heritage. Indeed, the relative competitiveness and production efficiencies which flow from the tied house system are both envied and admired by our competitors abroad. I hope to touch on the overseas competition aspect later. There is nothing new about the present system. Indeed this is acknowleged by members of the MMC who state in chapter 2 of their report that a measure of vertical integration has existed in the industry since the 18th century.
There must be good reason for such integration to have existed for more than 200 years. Primarily it is the fact that if one is producing a product with a short cellar or shelf life, in order to minimise wastage, increase efficiency and keep one's price competitive one must know with a reasonable degree of accuracy what one's volume sales are likely to be and where those outlets are located. That is as true today as it was in the 18th century. I am concerned that the proposal put forward today by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who advocates in effect a new tier of public house—a real free trade of some 22,000 pubs—will make production planning virtually impossible.
In tenanted pubs an entrepreneurial licensee can, for the outlay of a modest sum, start his own profitable business in premises where the rent is subsidised and where he can benefit from the marketing expertise and brand advertising which is freely provided by his brewer. He also gets a home for his family thrown in. No wonder the Brewers' Society quite rightly called this tenant-brewer relationship a partnership. I believe that this system has been a positive force in keeping retail costs down. In paragraph 2.203 of the report we are told that:
"Since beer consumption peaked in 1979 the real price of a pint of bitter in public bars has risen by 15 per cent.".
The reports adds:
"Over the same period real personal disposable income rose by 14·6 per cent.".
Those figures suggest to me that in real money terms the price of a typical pint of beer has increased by a mere 0·4 per cent. over 10 years, which is not a bad effort.
Lord Young of Grafifham: My Lords, it is 15 per cent. in real terms—over the rate of inflation. The report showed the increase in the price of a pint of beer between 1979 and 1987.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for correcting me. When one considers that more than 35 per cent. of the retail cost of a pint sold goes to the Government—that is 30p on every pint, producing an annual income to the Exchequer of £3.2 billion or 6 per cent. of GDP—we have not done badly. It is also worth noting that well over half a billion pounds is invested annually by Brewers in improvement to their pubs.
I believe that the police do not wish to see any changes in the present structure of the tied house system. There are unfortunately the less desirable elements of our society which from time to time rear their ugly heads. And pubs must deal with them. I

1455
am talking about drugs and various other problems. If members of the police are concerned in any way about a tied house, they have the benefit of knowing that they can go to the brewery company where they will receive immediate support. The company will immediately institute the most stringent inquiry so as to ensure that matters are put right.
I should like to turn briefly to consumer choice. With over 200 breweries in the United Kingdom—that figure includes micro-brewers—the product range is enormous. In any given area there is a tremendous choice of pubs available to the public. Members of the public are free to choose which pub door they go through. Indeed, that point has already been made by other noble Lords.
In the North-East—I have with me the figures provided by the North-East Brewers' Association—there are 3,183 pubs, 1,116 of which are free houses. The remaining 2,017 are divided between 11 breweries. That does not seem to me unduly monopolistic or in any way acting against the public interest.
There is a great variety of reasons why people choose to go to a particular pub. It may be the atmosphere and decoration, the clientele, the pub's games facilities, the food, the music, their liking for the licensee and his staff, its particular location—and, yes, beer. However, on that last point, it is very often the care which a licensee takes in looking after his beers which is more important than the range.
One of the statistics used by the MMC and upon which it bases much justification for its recommendations is the fact that the so-called "Big Six" own 75 per cent. of all brewery-owned on-licences. I suggest that that ignores the fact that there are over 37,000 free trade on-licences. With those included no one brewer can be said to own even 10 per cent. of the market. As my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing said, that is hardly a monopoly. The point I am trying to make is that while there are undoubtedly some big fish about, the sea is big enough and the ecosystem is not too much out of balance.
The draconian recommendations contained in the report would have far-reaching consequences detrimental to consumer prices and to the small businessman, let alone to the brewing industry as a whole and, I believe, to the public. The brewers have gone about their lawful business in our capitalist democracy for many years seeking to develop profitable companies. I should like to join with other noble Lords in expressing concern at the possibility that they may be called upon to divest themselves of substantial assets.
When one reads the report one cannot help being fascinated by the chapter headed "Note of Dissent". I should like to express agreement with my noble friend Lord Kimball who drew attention to it as perhaps the lone voice of sanity. The sad part about all this is that whatever is done by the Government as a result of the report, the alarm bells have been set jangling. The result is that available tenancies will continue to decline in number, thus denying
1456
many aspiring licensees with limited capital resources a route into the trade.
The likely passing of the village pub was a point excellently made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro. It has already been said that 1992 is just around the corner. A number of overseas competitors would just love to see us shoot ourselves in the foot and thereby provide them with a bridgehead in our industry. That simply must not be allowed to happen. I hope that my noble friend the Secretary of State can assure the House that he is mindful of that fact.
There is one final point which I do not think has so far been touched upon. It concerns the MMC's recommendation that the whole question of the supply of gaming machines—that is, amusement machines offering prizes—in pubs should be referred to the Director General of Fair Trading under the Fair Trading Act 1973 or that it should be the subject of an investigation under the Competition Act 1980.
Brewers are currently able to apply a measure of control by maintaining a list of reputable suppliers with which their tenants may deal. I am not sure what the MMC has in mind, but I must say that any dilution of the brewers' right of control will have the most disastrous consequences. The system works well at present and prevents the less reputable and, if I may say so, more colourful operators from gaining a foothold in this aspect of the trade.
I know that my noble friend the Minister has listened carefully to all the arguments that have been put forward both this afternoon and in recent weeks. I hope that he can at least reassure me that if any changes to the industry are to be implemented, he will acquire for himself a fine pair of kid gloves and handle the matter with the greatest care lest a Pandora's Box be opened which the whole country may live to regret.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing paid tribute to the commissioners who produced the report for the hard work which they put into it. I agree with him. I have no doubt that they are all men who are able, industrious and intelligent. Their two-and-a-half year inquiry was indeed comprehensive, as the 501-page report bears witness. What amazes me is that, despite all their effort, with the exception of the dissenting commissioner, Mr. Mills, they have apparently failed to understand the way in which competition works in the brewery industry. They appear to have failed to recognise the long-tested efficiency advantages of vertical integration and the role of contracts in allocating risk between brewer and licensee and the benefit of that structure for the consumer. They seem to have discounted the clear evidence of heavy competition at all stages in the supply of beer and ignored the commendable and unique performance of the UK industry, in particular when compared to that of other countries.
Mr. Mills, the dissenting commissioner, expressed the view that most of the recommendations proposed by his colleagues, if implemented, would be an unnecessary leap into the dark, could be counter

1457
productive and damaging to the structure of the industry and could consequently be against the public interest. In my view, that can be considered to be a polite statement. The truth is that, almost without exception, the recommendations proposed are misconceived, illogical and disproportionate. Moreover, the major ones quite clearly should be rejected.
Having somewhat firmly expressed by opposition to the report, perhaps I should tell the House that I have no financial interest in, or any connection whatever with, the brewing industry. My interest, apart from being an appreciative consumer, is political and legal. My political view is similar to that expressed by my noble friend Lord Kimball in that I believe that the brewing industry is a highly competitive, successful, responsible, popular and unique British institution. It is unthinkable that a British Government who believe in a free market and deregulation should lend their support to some of the drastic recommendations proposed. That is my political view.
My legal view is that I disagree with the commission's reasoning that a monopoly situation under Section 6 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 exists. My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing referred to what he believed to be a monopoly situation; but under the 1973 Act a monopoly situation would exist if at least one-quarter of the supply of beer was from a single company or an interconnected group of companies; that is known as the scale monopoly. It is clear that such a monopoly does not exist in the United Kingdom brewing industry.
To get round that difficulty the commission seized hungrily on Section 6(1)(c) and Section 6(2) of the 1973 Act which prove that a monopoly situation exists if two or more non-interconnected persons supply one-quarter of goods in the United Kingdom by conducting their respective affairs so as to prevent, restrict or distort competition in connection with the production or supply of that description of goods. That incidentally is known as a complex monopoly.
The commission decided that a combination of 70 brewers—six national, 11 regional, 43 local and 10 small brewers, all independent of one another and in active competition with one another—were together supplying over one-quarter of the United Kingdom beer. In fact they were supplying 90 per cent. of it. It therefore found that that amounted to a complex monopoly situation.
The commission's reasoning behind that somewhat surprising finding was that each brewer owned retail outlets to which it supplied by restrictive agreements with tenants or orders to managers most of all the beer sold and that each made preferential loans with restrictive agreements for the supply of its own beer to free houses and clubs.
The commission said that that meant that those brewers were conducting their respective affairs in order to prevent, restrict or distort competition. I believe that to be an unfair interpretation. It is a narrow interpretation of what that section of the Fair Trading Act meant by competition. No one
1458
suggests that vertical arrangements and ownership diminish in any way the intense competition in the beer market as a whole, and it is in the United Kingdom market as a whole, of which it is alleged that at least one-quarter has been monopolised, that competition must be considered. To approach the matter from the effect of an individual contract between a brewer and tenant or operator is in my opinion legally wrong and economically unreal.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene to ask the noble Lord to clarify what he is saying. I listened earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, making a similar point. Is he saying that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has failed to understand the Act under which it has been set up to operate and which it has interpreted, having considered everyone of the arguments that the noble Lord has put—because they are put in the report and rebutted? Is he saying that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission does not understand its own legislation?
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, what I am saying is precisely what I have just said; namely, that the commission's interpretation of what was required under that part of Section 6 of the 1973 Act was wrong and unreal. The reason that I gave was that it should measure competition in relation to United Kingdom competition and not in relation to what may be a contract between the brewer and licensee or borrower. I hope that the noble Lord will have the opportunity to consider what I have said. I may be wrong. These are matters of argument. But nevertheless it is a view which I wish to put forward.
I shall go further. The United Kingdom brewers' vertical arrangements and agreements are all approved of and authorised by European Commission Regulation 8–1984/83, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, referred, as a block exemption. It remains valid until 1997. Indeed, five out of the seven recommendations made by the commission in the report are in direct conflict with that regulation. The commissioners considered that point, and if the noble Lord would like to look at paragraph 12.119 he will see that they appear to consider that, if my noble friend the Secretary of State consults the commission on its recommendation, the problem is solved. I fear that it is by no means as simple as that.
The recommendation seeks, through prohibiting agreements and conduct expressly permitted by the block exemption, and in other ways, to impose a restrictive competition regime in the United Kingdom only; in other words, it is seeking the distortion of competition in the Common Market. I submit to my noble friend the Secretary of State that it would be unwise of us to lend our support to that recommendation.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene once again, but we have a difficult and complex position as it is. We should take care not to make it more difficult. Even the dissenting view accepted the fact that a complex monopoly situation exists. Paragraph 1.11 of the report shows that the

1459
six national brewers account for 75 per cent. of United Kingdom beer production. I have had the opportunity to take other advice. In our view there is a complex monopoly situation. I am listening carefully to the debate. We should be looking for remedies so as to rectify the position. It would not take the debate further to go into the foundation of the report and the advice that I have had from the director general since.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, my noble friend may wish to lend his support to the report. I do not. The difficulty that he says we are in is not my difficulty but his. It is whether he is going to carry out, through the legal process, some of the recommendations contained in the report. I suggest that he would be unwise so to do. That is why I criticise the report. The commissioners have produced an unsatisfactory report. Most of their recommendations do not deserve support.
I have been speaking for some time now and I shall not continue much longer. I should have liked to have referred to some of the recommendations to which other noble Lords have referred, in particular the major recommendations referred to by my noble friend Lord Kimball and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro, as well as my noble friend Lord Pender, concerning the limit of 2,000. That recommendation cannot in the analysis be supported at all. I hope that my noble friend will come out straight away and say that it will be discounted and not supported. The whole proposal will inevitably cause disastrous problems in the industry.
The other recommendation concerned the tied loans which were referred to by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. I welcome what my noble friend the Secretary of State said about supporting members' clubs, provided that all the members want it, to negotiate a loan with the brewer. However, what about the free houses? Why can they not negotiate a loan with the brewer? That is something which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, said, is widespread throughout Europe.
The major recommendations to limit the number of public houses owned by brewers and abolish the loan tie are adequately referred to in the note of dissent by Mr. Mills in paragraph 14. He says that they are:
"neither desirable nor necessary: indeed their implementation—far from making the market more competitive—could make it less competitive, reduce consumer choice, cause considerable uncertainty and create public interest detriments."
I ask my noble friend to pay attention to that kind of view which was expressed by one of the commissioners.
Of course one would agree that it may well be that some changes in the UK brewing industry are desirable. Many have been mentioned, but these are minor changes. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, referred to changes which have taken place over the last 25 years. They are led by both the brewers and the consumers and these changes are constantly taking place. The brewers are responsible people. If changes are needed they may well be achieved by
1460
voluntary persuasion. My noble friend the Secretary of State says that he is in communication with the brewers. I hope that he will realise that negotiation is infinitely preferable to recourse to the legal powers provided by the 1973 Act. Negotiation and persuasion are the course which I urge him to follow.
5.24 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend Lord Kimball for being delayed, since the train which I went to catch never turned up. Amazing! I was delayed by an hour, but for once it was not my fault.
The only connection that I or rather my family have ever had with brewing is that in the 18th century my family gave the first Guinness a charter to start a brewery. When a book was written on the history of the firm I gave the author access to the papers of the time. That of course has given me no experience regarding breweries. But I wish to say that I am fortunate enough to reside for a fairly large part of the year in the most beautiful part of Kent, with the most beautiful pubs I have ever seen in England, with their gardens, creepers and charming pubkeepers.
Other noble Lords have referred to the idea in the report that it should be demanded that the breweries should get rid of 2,000 houses. Some people might think that that would be favourable to the small companies, and that is possibly right. However, I doubt it. I believe that if that happens the breweries might decide to sell far more and it could become a forced sale. That would be disastrous. To start with, I imagine that if they sold all their houses it would come to about £6 billion and the smaller companies would not be able to pay the amounts necessary in order to buy some of the houses back.
What would probably happen is that some great industrialists from Australia, Canada, America or wherever would buy them. I am all for money coming in through people investing in Britain, within certain limits, but it would be disastrous if the brewery business became completely controlled by foreign hands. That is just my opinion.
It would be rather interesting for somebody to write a book—it would have to be very long—on how pubs in different parts of the British Isles vary. I have been to quite a lot of pubs in all parts of the shires. I remember once being taken by a friend to a pub in Ireland. There were 16 or 17 pubs in the village and only nine inhabited houses. It was surprising. I asked, "How do you explain this?" "Oh, well", was the answer, "I think some other activities might go on in the other houses". So I dropped the subject. A great deal of what I have written down has already been mentioned so I shall not repeat it.
I wish to say a word about the idea in the report that tenants of breweries' pubs could appoint, or lease to, tenants of their choice. That might be all right if they made the right choice, but would they have the experience to do so. I do not think that would be very satisfactory and some undesirables might be chosen by the sitting tenant. We must remember the problem of drugs. I am quite sure that, if that problem arose, some of the people quite

1461
innocently chosen might deal in drugs. So I do not agree with that proposal. I must not repeat what has been said before. It is always difficult if one speaks towards the end of a debate not to do so.
As regards the price of beer, the report seems to think that the retail price of beer will go down, but I am sure that that will not happen. There are many reasons for that, some of which have already been mentioned.
I have spoken for six minutes. I think that the report is very well prepared but I should like to make one criticism. To a great extent it has been prepared by academics. I am all for academics, but in their right place. I have had experience of small businesses. It has been my experience that one must have managed a business or businesses oneself to find out the problems. I shall not continue, but I wish to thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for his very good explanation of the matter. I must apologise that I did not hear all of his speech as I arrived so late. I heard quite a lot of it, but I hope to hear more from my noble friend towards the end of the debate.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, after listening to the spirited warning by the right reverend Prelate against what he called the dissolution of the pubs, the least we can hope is that the local brewer of the right reverend Prelate will name one of its better hostelries "The Bishop of Truro", so that we can all visit it to enjoy the local brew.
The Minister had better watch his flanks. He may gain the eloquent support of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, but rouse up a holy alliance of the Bishops' Bench, what used to be called in this House the "beerage"—I caught a whiff of beerage on the breath of some speakers—and that 25 per cent. woman, the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, to say nothing of such friends on the Cross-Benches as myself.
I personally welcome the MMC report mainly—indeed only—for the dissenting note by Mr. Leif Mills, who describes himself, in the best tradition of trade union leaders, as a:
"frequent consumer of real ale".
If we read the note of dissent written by Mr. Mills, we shall discover that he displays indignation, scorn and anxiety, but his warnings are sober and there are no signs of the report having been written, as they used to say, under the affluence of incohol. Not the least of the services that Mr. Mills has rendered is to challenge the idea that on complex issues of economic policy, committees should always seek a unanimous verdict.
In an IEA Hobart paper written 25 years ago, entitled Anything but Action, A. P. Herbert half seriously suggested that on these occasions we should appoint two panels, each charged with presenting the strongest case respectively in favour of and against a particular proposition. That candidly acknowledged the fact that good men can disagree and such a system would leave the reader, and in the last resort the Government, to judge the merits of the contending arguments.
1462
I congratulate the brewers in this situation for the generally high quality of the special pleadings which they have prepared to inform our judgment and to redress the balance of advocacy. Having pondered the opposing arguments of the MMC report and its critics, I strongly incline to the commonsense view expressed by Mr. Leif Mills that the distinctive quality and traditional popularity at home and abroad of the British pub is not unrelated to the tied estate. He acknowledges that competition does not and cannot work with textbook simplicity as economist members of the MMC frequently appear to assume. His most telling quip, which academics might dignify as a "rejoinder" to the majority, is to propose an examination question for their students. He proposes the following question:
"The brewing industry may well work in practice, but does it work in theory?"
I should add that Mr. Mills has himself studied economics, even if it was that rather dangerous amalgam of PPE at Oxford which has a great deal to answer for in enthusing many members of the Labour Party with socialism from which they have only recently begun fully to recover.
I seriously believe that this industry works well on the whole. It is at the forefront of the growing international leisure and service sector which, as the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord De L'Isle, said, will face intensified competition from Europe and further afield. Despite the charges of the MMC report, concentration of production is lower than in other comparable countries, choice is wider and prices in pubs are a much smaller multiple of the prices in competing off-licences and supermarkets.
Regional variations in prices offended the MMC, but they proved to reflect wide differences in property costs. Wholesale margins were singled out as looking high and rising, but turned out to be lower and stable because of discounts forced on brewers. What forced those discounts on brewers? It was competition in the local retailing situation. Lager looked relatively expensive to the geniuses of the MMC, but proved to have higher marketing and capital costs. The total misjudgment of the report was in asserting that brewers made their profits mainly from brewing and wholesaling. Yet Whitbread has said that, faced with forcible dissection, it would not be the only one to stick to its pubs rather than to its breweries.
The most devastating critique of the MMC comes from one of the foremost economic experts in competition theory, Dr. George Yarrow from Oxford. His conclusion is that:
"The MMC's analysis of the effects of vertical agreements dissolves into virtually total incoherence".
Even among economists, that is a fairly unfriendly observation. The major objection of Dr. Yarrow is that the report constantly refers to "the monopoly situation" on the formal reference criterion that at least 25 per cent. of beer sold on licensed premises was made by companies which controlled outlets, and/or made preferential loans to free outlets. Dr. Yarrow says there was no effort by the commission to demonstrate whether and in what respects market dominance existed or was exercised to the detriment

1463
of consumers. Dr. Yarrow points out that competition is a multidimensional process going beyond prices and profits to the costs of production, marketing, research, innovation, to say nothing of consumer choice, convenience and amenity, on which other noble Lords have spoken so eloquently.
Leaving aside the gross invasion of property rights in making brewers sell off most of their pubs, Dr. Yarrow predicts that the results will have anti-competitive effects to the detriment of small retailers and brewers, and still more in the long run on their customers. None of us can have missed over recent years the improved quality and range of services in British pubs, with a welcome emphasis on food and family facilities. Our expert witness Dr. Yarrow points out that an apparent restriction in one dimension may increase competition in other ways, not least when more supermarkets, off-licences and clubs sell more drinks for home consumption within the range of television and beyond the reach of muggers and breathalysers. In short, pubs have to compete vigorously to keep their customers. The economic efficiency gained by the tying of outlets is shared by lower prices to the customer.
If we leave aside ideological rhetoric, no economist really believes that in complex, diverse and differentiated markets the textbook assumptions of atomistic competition provide a serviceable model, whether for beer, water or anything else. The outcome of trying to push the real world in that direction would be more likely to produce instability, higher costs and less choice through homogenised output, and lack of progress through inability to finance long-term investment.
Save in rare identical products and in some financial markets, imperfect competition is the best competition we can have. Where we should always be vigilant is in purging avoidable restrictions upon production and distribution, above all to keep open entry to new competitors. In brewing, the key restriction which brings the tied house into question is the power of licensing justices to veto new entrants on some assessment of "need".
In its otherwise disappointing evidence, the Consumers' Association points out that licensing,
"makes it very difficult to open new pubs and gives a clear value to the licences owned by existing ones".
My proposal to rescue the Government from the MMC's ambush draws on the 1972 Erroll Committee on liquor licensing. It is that justices should henceforth be confined to their historical function (since 1552) of ensuring that the individual to whom a licence is granted is "a fit and proper person" and that his premises are suitable for their purpose. But let the justices be relieved of the intolerable burden and the impertinence of deciding local need, which is a business judgment for the market to regulate.
Once this artificial restriction on new outlets is swept away, the theoretical objection to ownership or control of outlets by brewers must be reduced if not substantially removed. In that event the academic critics could return to brood in their ivory towers and the majority of us, who I gather visit pubs at least once a month, can continue to enjoy
1464
the many and varied charms of that unique British institution.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Ingrow: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lord Kimball for giving us the opportunity to consider the report. I must first declare an interest. I am a small brewer. I have worked out roughly where we stand: we affect the total supply of beer by somewhere around the fourth decimal point. Therefore I do not believe that I can be said to be a monopoly in myself. But I have spent a great deal of time in the brewing industry. I was appalled to realise that it was 50 years. So I have had over 50 years' practical experience of the industry.
I have listened to the many speeches this afternoon and I think that there are Members who think that they have a fair idea of what goes on in breweries. I do not think that; I am confident that I have practical experience of the industry, as has my noble friend Lord Liverpool.
In a small brewery one has to fight hard to keep going but one does not have to surrender. We have more free trade than we have tied trade. As noble Lords will be aware, there has been committee after committee on the subject. I had the pleasure of giving evidence for the Magistrates' Association to the commission of the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale. He is still here, and very happy about the matter.
I understand that the most recent investigation was instigated by the Office of Fair Trading alone. There was no outcry and no demand from the public. The MMC appointed a committee of six members to investigate and report. Originally it was due to report within two years but took two and a half years of expensive hard work. When the committee produced its questionnaire it sent me the same one as the large brewers. It is all very well for the large brewers; they have plenty of people to complete such questionnaires. Noble Lords can guess who had to complete it in my brewery.
As a small brewer one has to look at everything that is going on and find out why things are happening. I had to consider the consequences to my brewery of each proposal.
I told my colleagues in the industry that, since the matter had been sent to the MMC, the commission would come back with the report, whether that was justified or not. That is what I have found from studying the report and that view seems to be borne out by what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said rather better than I could.
Four of the six members of the committee had never been in practical business of any kind. It is dangerous for this or any other industry to be subjected to destruction by well-meaning people who do not know their subject. Indeed, they were the kind of people to whom no sensible industrialist would offer gainful employment.
If one looks at the report one finds that it is all about figures: they know the price of everything and the value of nothing. I should like to give a few examples. The report said that too much profit was made. That is the kind of easy remark made by those

1465
whose salary comes not from business but from the public sector, and is fairly common. The report said that there was not enough competition; however, it has been said that if one wants competition one may be frustrated by the licensing justices who say that there are enough pubs and there is no need for any more.
There was apparently surprise among the members of the commission that the price of goods of all kinds varied up and down the country. It is extraordinary to read something like that. I wonder what right they have to judge anybody when they do not know the simplest facts of life. I find it disgraceful. Of course prices vary up and down the country. National variations do occur. Fish is cheaper on the docks than in the shops; beer is dearer in London—most things are dearer in London.
There is one point which I believe should be nailed, namely the brewers' tie. That is presented in the same way as nurses used to present children with the threat of Bonaparte if they did not go to bed quietly. The brewers' tie—what is it? If one owns a shop and sells very good shoes in it, that is one's right in accordance with the law. Someone may then come along and say, "I cannot sell my shoes as well as you. I want you to sell my shoes in your shop". If that happened with any product but beer most people would think it extraordinary. It is a most extraordinary state of affairs. If one wants to buy the goods of Marks and Spencer you buy what the board of Marks and Spencer says you can buy. If you want to go to the estimable noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, you buy what the board of Sainsbury's says you can buy. You will not find its goods in Marks and Spencer and vice versa. Nobody grumbles.
I have only tenants in my pubs. I like to see people have an opportunity to succeed for themselves. They can do that in a small firm. But I do not think that I should want to continue in that way if the proposals in the report were to cramp our style completely.
If the proposals concerning loans were adopted we should be left with managers. I should stress that many clubs come to brewers because brewers will lend them money when banks will not. (I wish that banks were as careful in lending money in other areas). As it is, there will be a great reduction in the number of sporting clubs, and Clubs of all kinds, if we are not allowed to extend loans.
When the state enters business—and this is a proposal to nationalise elements of the private brewer—the results are not good. Perhaps we can cast our minds back to the nationalisation of various breweries before the First World War. The last—the Carlisle state breweries—I think was returned to private ownership 18 years ago. One brewery had to be shut immediately, the owners tell me, because it was liable to blow up, and the standards of decoration and the regulations which were applied in other pubs under that system were a total disaster. It does not fit naturally with the production of beer to run the business on Civil Service lines.
There was a mention of a consumer elite, and the report of the Consumer Council is before us. With respect, those people are the elite of any organisation.
1466
One can find just as many people who will say that they would rather have music in a pub as will say that they would rather not have music. The responses tended to come from the council, which is not the same thing as the ordinary British people.
It is hard going in a small industry. I know. I suggest that those who do not know or who think that it is very easy should try it, with their own money, and see whether they are competitive. We shall be round there in Carey Street when they file their papers.
It seems extraordinary that in the whole of the report the MMC does not appear to have thought what the consequences would be if all its recommendations were followed. Clearly the report needs to be amended before it can be considered.
But there is one danger that we should consider. If I had been presented with a proposal to confiscate substantial property I should have got rid of it as quickly as one would get rid of a primed grenade. That, bluntly, is my advice to the Secretary of State. He has the poisoned chalice there in his hands and he should get rid of it as quickly as possible. I can only say that there must be no question of the report having the same consequences on the government side as did the abolition of resale price maintenance in 1964.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, we must thank my noble friend Lord Kimball for instigating this useful debate. Furthermore, perhaps I may suggest that, when a noble Lord as loyal to the Government's cause as my noble friend draws attention to problems arising from a report such as this, the Government would do well to heed that warning.
I cannot lay claim to any great knowledge of the brewing industry; indeed, I do not now drink any alcohol, so I suppose that I could claim a certain disinterest. But I have one area of knowledge, in that I am closely involved in the treatment and long-term rehabilitation of alcholics.
Some people would suggest that those who sell alcohol are responsible for the problems of alcoholism and alcohol abuse. That is not a view that I hold. However, all manufacturers and retailers have a responsibility to make sure that no harm befalls the customer as a result of purchasing their products. The large brewers in the United Kingdom have responded well to the call for low-alcohol and non-alcolohic beers and have continued to promote them strongly through expensive advertising campaigns. They have also artificially suppressed the price to make them competitive with ordinary beers, which are much cheaper to brew. They have responded to that challenge in a way that leaves the tobacco and drug companies looking very foolish.
On the subject of so-called lager louts, the police have always told me that it is far easier to police tied or tenanted pubs than free houses because, if there is a problem, the breweries are both quick and keen to take police advice in getting it sorted out. Of course they have the money to implement rapid change which is not available to landlords of free houses.

1467
Problems of repeated rowdiness and violence in pubs can often be dealt with by changing the appearance and atmosphere of the pub. The introduction of restaurant facilities and the provision of a room where children can go is enormously helpful in discouraging troublemakers. Only the larger breweries can provide the capital necessary to make those changes.
Again, only the larger breweries have the money to run those incredibly expensive advertising campaigns that we need to alter public attitudes to drinking. To divest them of their pubs to any degree would deprive them of the inclination and money to continue to make those vital changes to an area of severe social problems.
In part, I suppose that I am addressing some of the problems raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. What worried him was, if the big six breweries are forced to sell off 22,000-odd pubs, how will the landlords of those pubs find the money to maintain standards as they should be maintained. That is a very real worry.
I should not dare to criticise so mighty a tome as the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report; indeed, I should hardly dare to lift it! On the face of it, much of what it concludes as recommendations seems sensible. The sale of guest beers, the lifting of restrictions on soft drinks and other freedoms would undoubtedly be good for the consumer, but on that one point of ownership of outlets by the brewers I am concerned.
If one stands back and looks at it, brewing is a very healthy industry. There is a large diversity of businesses, including international conglomerates, large public companies, small private companies and family firms, as well as many one-man outlets. There is a large turnover, good profit margins and a vast, stable and increasing asset base. Take away that asset base, as the report recommends, and the industry may be severely damaged.
In that matter, as in all others, it is only opinion. I cannot claim to have studied the industry as closely as the MMC has done. But on one thing I am clear: British pubs are a much loved institution and the brewing industry is successful and highly thought of abroad. In short, the system works, and if something works we should not mess about with it.
5.54 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I too should like to add my thanks to those of other noble Lords to my noble friend Lord Kimball for instigating the debate. I must offer the House my apologies for being unable to be present at the start of the debate. I had to attend an industrial function in the West Midlands.
It is a source of consternation to me that I am forced to oppose my Front Bench on this occasion. I should declare an interest as a great consumer of beer, although not in vast quantities. To my mind, there is no beer on earth that comes even remotely close to British beer, especially Burton-brewed beer, and I shall defend it to the very last drop.
1468
What the commission is demanding puts the British brewing industry under threat and undermines its very existence. In my view, what the commission is proposing is both heavy-handed and fatuous. Such interference would not be tolerated in other markets, for the allegations of a serious abuse of market power are flimsy, to say the least.
If my noble friend really believes that a monopoly situation exists in the brewing industry—and I am not so certain that I agree with him—it is a monopoly that has worked extremely well for many years to the benefit of the consumer. There is considerable freedom of choice in what the consumer purchases. I know that, if I visit a pub that does not stock my favourite tipple, I go elsewhere because the chances of being able to buy that brand nearby are very high indeed.
As the Financial Times in a leader on 12th June put it:
"Consumer choice is not restricted, just because individual outlets offer a restricted range of products… In some areas individual brewers may own too many pubs, but in general, product choice can be exercised by moving between different outlets".
But what a state we have reached, with 1992 only four years away, when we are asked to be parties to the undermining and dissipating of our great beer-making traditions. Why should our great brewing industries be forced to shed parts of their business by arguments, which are anything but overwhelming and which would also leave them less able to meet head on the force of foreign competition?
As we have heard from other noble Lords this afternoon, there are currently 200 independent producers in the United Kingdom, with six companies accounting for 75 per cent. of the market. That is hardly excessive by any standards and is positively benign when compared with monopoly power in overseas brewing industries.
Like many other noble Lords, I am not prepared to stand on the sidelines and watch our great brewing industries in this great country being torn apart. Those who suggest it are way out of line with reality and should be made to sit down with the heads of our great brewing concerns and be told—and should listen to—the facts of life.
Where I live in Staffordshire is within 15 miles of Burton-on-Trent, which is the hub and centre of Britain's great brewing traditions. The brewer that I know best in my area is Bass, Mitchells and Butlers. In the Midlands alone, that brewery has over 2,200 public houses and four distribution depots; it currently employs in excess of 13,000 people. It is a major supplier to the free trade and a major employer.
Implementation of the report would bring dire consequences for the industry. Hundreds of public houses would be under great threat, prices would rocket, there would be less choice of brands and hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs would be put at risk.
Bass alone would have to divest itself of some 5,300 outlets nationwide. It would be barred from entering into any more free trade loan agreements.

1469
That in turn would drastically affect working men's clubs, many of which would be unable to survive. The resulting social upheavals are obvious. There would also be a danger of invasion by companies outside the European Community. The effect on the Midlands economy alone could be disastrous. Already Birmingham breweries have had very hard times. Ansells closed in 1981 and there is now a proposal to close Davenports with its site going for redevelopment. Even Cape Hill, one of the Midlands' brewing success stories, which has undergone a recent £11.5 million modernisation programme, would be under threat.
Furthermore, the recommendations pay no consideration whatsoever to the role played by brewers in the communities that they serve. Bass has invested £ 100 million over the last two years within the Midlands. Its contributions to the arts, sports, charities and community projects maintain all that is best in the British way of life. None of that should be allowed to perish on the whim of the ill-informed.
Can my noble friend the Secretary of State honestly be serious—at a time when the Midlands is really moving forward in its quest for full employment—in wishing to implement badly thought out proposals that stand every chance of dragging the area back to the ghastly days of the late 1970s and early 1980s? Can he honestly say that such drastic measures will improve the structure of the industry? I think not. Can he honestly say that to take away property rights (which is what the enforced divestment of public houses means) is something that we as a property owning democracy should sit back and allow to happen?
Does he think that there is a sufficient market on which to float all those superfluous properties? Especially at the present time, with high mortgage rates which are already a killer, can he see people who previously were tenants borrowing without any financial assistance at all from the industry to run their own businesses? I do not know one banker who would support them. I do not know one person who supports the recommendations of this report.
6 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I take part in this debate as an Opposition spokesman on industry. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel did the same, and, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Young, is still the Secretary of State for Industry.
As I listened to the debate it seemed to me that what was needed here was either the Secretary of State for Social Services and our spokesman for that on this side, since it appears that the brewers are undertaking to carry out social services and are not selling beer. Alternatively, our arts spokesman should be present as this debate raises concerns which are part of our national heritage; or we should have our employment spokesman because employment seems to be a fundamental issue in our discussions. There may also be a place for our agriculture spokesman because of the need to preserve our rural areas; or, if I understood correctly the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro and there is some inextricable connection between the
1470
Church of England and the brewing industry, perhaps we need our religious affairs spokesman to be present.
In that case we are most fortunate on these Benches because our main spokesman on industry is also our religious affairs spokesman. To the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro I must say that my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who listened to what he referred to as a splendid speech but who, regrettably, could not take part in the debate himself, asked me to remind noble Lords of the election song of the Liberals in 1880. They used to sing "The Churchman and the Brewer":
"We will drive them from the land For the non-Conformist children are marching hand in hand ".
I must say that many of the contributions to the debate have somewhat distressed me. As an academic myself, I do not mind any attack on academics. As noble Lords are aware, I can take care of myself in that regard—and noble Lords may discover that for themselves in a moment or two. However, I have to say that the group of members of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission who produced this report were not a group of academics. So far as I can see, except for one obvious exception they are a group of businessmen. They have some experience of running industry but certainly I do not recognise most of them as academics.
I do not think that it will do to attack the Monopolies and Mergers Commission itself simply because one does not like what it has done. That is my first point. My second point refers back to the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Orr-Ewing and Lord Thomas of Gwydir. I remind the House that the Brewers' Society said that it did not think that this industry was a complex monopoly. However, I think one owes it to your Lordships to remind the society that these matters were looked into in very great detail by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission itself, and it has simply said that the Brewers' Society is mistaken. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is perfectly capable of saying that he does not agree. But it must not be misunderstood: the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is a major body and it has certainly taken a view which cannot be dismissed out of hand. I was most happy to hear the Secretary of State say that the advice from his department was exactly the same. This is a proper inquiry which falls well within the terms of the legislation.
I was equally distressed to hear the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, say that the committee was ill informed. I cannot believe that he has read the report. For example, the least of the information contained in the report is all the information that the Brewers' Society produced, and, to give it credit, that information is summarised in every detail. If the group were ill informed, it is not obvious to me just how it could have been ill informed. What was the Brewers' Society doing in respect of the enormous chapter which summarises its evidence in the report if it was not correctly informing the MMC? If the noble Earl will reflect for a moment, he may consider that his use of those words was not entirely appropriate. In my view the group were not even

1471
remotely ill informed and that is not the way in which to approach this report.
Let me add that I do not believe that if we find ourselves with a report of this kind, any Member of your Lordships' House can do anything but consider it carefully; or rather, noble Lords would be failing in their duty if they did not scrutinise the contents of the report. That is the purpose of this debate.
I must say that I have generally heard very little which gives any suggestion of this report being a definitive report. An enormous range of evidence has been considered. It is a report that, in particular, states very clearly the views of the Brewers' Society and then goes to a great deal of trouble to rebut those views. It is fundamental to our deliberations that the relevant issues should have been considered. They have certainly been considered by a group of people who have no axe to grind. They are people who stand independently and act, as they are obliged to do, in the public interest.
One may disagree with them. I am not for one moment suggesting that when a report comes forward anyone is forced to say that he agrees with it. To suggest that this report is anything other than a first-class definitive analysis produced in a bona fide manner and using the best available evidence does less than justice to the report itself or your Lordships' House.
At the risk of tedium, I shall quote from the report itself. The opening paragraph reads:
"We have unanimously concluded that a monopoly exists in favour of those brewers who own tied houses".
There is no shilly-shallying there. They say that they have unanimously come to that conclusion. Again, at paragraph 1.18:
"Eloquently though the industry's case has been put, we are not persuaded that all is well. We have confirmed our provisional finding that a complex monopoly situation exists in favour of the brewers with tied estates and loan ties".
Paragraph 1.22 refers to the,
"detriments which we see as arising from this lack of competition",
and in summary it lists the main detriments:
"the price of…beer …has risen too fast…the high price of lager is not justified by the cost of producing it"
etc.
Noble Lords can read this report as well as I can. All that is contained in the report. It is not a superficial report or one that has not considered the matter fundamentally and in my view considerately.
A particular point that I should like to draw to the attention of the House was also raised by the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, although I think that the Secretary of State dealt with it quite admirably in his intervention. The report shows quite clearly that the real price of beer has risen over this period. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, put the main point that it has risen in real terms at the same rate as real incomes have risen. Given that it is argued—as I think it was argued by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, to whom we are thankful for introducing this debate—that there are economies of scale, in this industry to argue economies of scale plus a rise in the real price of the product at the
1472
same rate as the rate of rise in real incomes is all the evidence that is needed to show that this is a monopoly industry exerting a monopoly power. One could look for no harder evidence.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I rise to intervene because the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said particularly that this was partly a manufacturing business and partly a service sector. Over the past decade or so there has been a transformation of the facilities and amenities and everything related to the industry. One cannot say that it is demonstrable as the noble Lord says. Still it remains arguable.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I was about to return on other grounds to the remarks of my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and I shall do so in a moment. However, I think that the evidence is overwhelming. We are not discussing a minor rise in the real price of beer—bitter in this case. I see that the noble Earl wants to intervene. Perhaps I may just finish this sentence. We are discussing a major price rise which could not possibly be accounted for by what has allegedly happened on amenities.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene again or at least to reply to him. I was referring to the 10-year period 1979–89 when prices rose by 15 per cent. in real terms. If one applies an average percentage increase, that comes to a little over 1 per cent. per annum. Given the enormous increase in that same period in the contribution to the Exchequer that has been made from the price of a pint through duty and VAT, I do not think that that is in any way unreasonable.
Lord Peston: My Lords, obviously the noble Earl is perfectly within his rights to say what he regards as unreasonable. Perhaps I may remind him that we should be looking at the same table. The table to which I refer is the one that takes out the VAT element. There may be a further element for VAT. However, this table is net of the VAT element. In my old Treasury days, the Exchequer was most obliged to the industry for generating a degree of revenue. Of that there is no doubt. I do not think that the ending of a monopoly here would diminish that revenue.
I was astonished and most disappointed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. It is a sad day for the Institute of Economic Affairs, of which he has been such an admirable leader—I recommend its pamphlets to my students—when its leading figure speaks in your Lordships' House in favour of one of the major restrictive practices—namely, the tie—that one can find in this country. I say that to him in terms so that he knows where I stand. He argues that the competitive model, which is the baseline for all serious analysis of economic welfare, no longer applies. If that is the case, the difficulty for him is that a very large number of the most interesting pamphlets ever to come from the IEA are now disowned by him. I found that a most

1473
unhappy intervention. Adam Smith would most certainly be turning in his grave on this matter.
Perhaps I may refer to Mr. Mills's minority report. There is a difference between a minority and a majority. We can agree at the very least that we are entitled to regard the majority group as bona fide people who have considered these matters. However, I was intrigued by Mr. Mills's point on competition. It was in the famous paragraph 42 to which my noble friend Lady Fisher referred. Mr. Mills states that the existing competition works. The point that many of us wish to make is that more competition will work even better and more in the interests of consumers.
I well understand why noble Lords on the other side have argued about the effect of either the recommendations of the MMC or those of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. I was delighted to hear the sympathetic way in which the Secretary of State said that he was open to consider that line of advance. There is an enormous argument for going in that direction. However, it will weaken the big brewer. There is no doubt about that. But the whole point of trying to do something about monopoly power is that it weakens those who are exercising such power. That is the nature of the problem.
In praising the intervention of the Secretary of State, perhaps I may say that noble Lords will recognise how difficult that is for me on an occasion such as this. However, it is equally difficult for him to be praised by me when hardly a word has been spoken in his favour by anyone sitting behind him. His intervention that we must look carefully at the non-beer tie is also correct. We would very much agree with him. We are also well aware that the local monopoly problem will not necessarily be solved by the MMC recommendations. The problem of local monopoly is very difficult to solve. The Secretary of State and his department are looking at the local monopoly problems. He will be strongly encouraged by my noble friends and myself on that matter.
En passant, two aspects of the debate left me quite bewildered. I agree that pubs are better than they were. However, this mythology that pubs are so good seems to be rather exaggerated. Not all pubs, but too many, are still dirty, uncomfortable, noisy beyond belief and of course polluted by cigarette smoke. We know that they overcharge for soft drinks, and the public resent that. There is enormous evidence on that.
I do not wish to go back over the ground that my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley covered a few weeks ago. But we know that this admirable industry, envisaging itself as a social service, is still unable to provide a uniform standard measure of wine and is still unable to tell its customers what wine they are buying in the glass. I accept the premise of caveat emptor. I would not dream of ordering a glass of wine in a pub. Nevertheless, for those people who do, I should have thought that this marvellous social service industry, constantly concerned only with the public interest and not its profits, would move slightly more rapidly in the direction of letting the public know what they are getting when buying a glass of wine.
1474
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro and other noble Lords have raised the question of the rural pub. It is difficult to read the whole report through while listening to the debate. I have rapidly looked through the report a second time to see whether any definitive evidence was provided that rural pubs were threatened. If the subject is that important I am surprised that it was not a major part of the evidence of the Brewers' Society.
The issue seems to have arisen much more recently. When it realised that it was going to lose the argument on economic grounds, the society thought that it would go into rural preservation, heritage and such matters. I accept the view of the noble Viscount that one must not listen to academics because they have no experience of the world and do not know of these matters. However, as an economist, I am unable to see any evidence that the rural pub is threatened overwhelmingly, and I cannot think of any reason a priori why it would be. In particular, the brewers have not claimed that they are using monopoly profits in urban areas to subsidise the rural areas. They may not make the same profits in those cases, but I have not read that they are suggesting—they may now have changed their ground—that the rural pub is in some sense uneconomic and will go under in intense competition.
I have rather more belief in the market than most noble Lords opposite, though not the Secretary of State. In so far as the rural pub is desirable and desired, the market will provide appropriate rural pubs. I am not one of those who believes in competition in the market except where it concerns my own interests. I believe in competition in the market where it is relevant; and that is another matter altogether.
In conclusion, I believe that this subject has been thoroughly explored. I believe that the brewers have lost the argument. I believe that they now seek to reverse policy using a massive public relations campaign, financed no doubt by the monopoly profits that they earn. I believe that this is a critical moment for competition policy in this country. It is fundamental that the Secretary of State acts on this report and that he acts sooner rather than later.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, again I say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Kimball for initiating the debate and for giving all in your Lordships' House the opportunity to debate this matter thoroughly. I have been sitting in your Lordships' House for close on five years now. It is said—I believe it fully—that one judges a man by his friends. I have had a certain amount of culture shock this afternoon as I begin to wonder where I am sitting.
In summing up, I find myself under a very real difficulty. Much that I could say would, I fear, be market sensitive. So there is very little indeed that I can add to the statement that I made earlier in the debate. There are however one or two small items that I wish to mention. I ask all in your Lordships' House to read my words very carefully. They were

1475
not chosen lightly. I ask noble Lords to ponder on them and what they mean—just as I shall read carefully all the contributions made this afternoon—in order to see the way ahead in what is a very difficult situation.
I correct one or two inaccuracies. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, outlined what seemed at first sight to be in large part the proposals of the Wolverhampton and Dudley Breweries and CAMRA. In case he should be thinking that I have changed my position, I assure him that it is he who has changed. I said that I was attracted philosophically by the proposals of the Wolverhampton and Dudley Breweries to release the tie above the threshold because that would let the market work. One would have more consumer choice rather than the other way round. I am sure that the noble Lord will be reassured to find that what he finds attractive is the working place of the market.
I say this to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. We should be careful when referring to 1992 and considering the situation in terms of alcohol abuse. There is not necessarily a better world when we cross the Channel. It is some time since I saw the current figures. But it seems to me that the consumption of alcohol, for example in France, is considerably above that of the United Kingdom. That is not necessarily something which we should want to follow. These are areas in which we must be very careful.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro expressed concern, which many in your Lordships' House have echoed, for the future of the village pubs. Perhaps I have led a peculiarly sheltered life—the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, seems to know that I have led a sheltered life—but many village pubs seem to me to be free houses. I am not sure how many pubs are tied and how many are free. The issue has only recently emerged and the figures are not available in the report. For many village pubs other services become attractive. I am not sure what effect that will have. It is something which we must take into account in our further deliberations.
I must tell my noble friends Lord Orr-Ewing and Lord Thomas of Gwydir that 25 per cent. is not the test. We are talking about the ease of market entry. Many speakers have referred to other matters. But the great difference between this industry, the on-house licence, and any other, is that the number of public houses in the country is limited. The number is 18,000. It has increased by only 7 per cent. over the past 20 years. It is that, coupled with a vertical tie, that persuaded, I believe, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to say that a complex monopoly exists. Of course what we are looking at is a way to remedy that difficulty.
I should tell my noble friend Lord Pender that there is consensus among the parties, which includes the National Licensed Victuallers' Association, that security of tenure should be increased by bringing it within the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. To the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, I must say that one cannot always choose one's beer merely by going to the local pub. In some local authority areas, though not many, over 50 per cent. of the pubs sell
1476
only one particular make of beer. In other areas it is a third. But there is evidence of local concentration. That may be a fruitful area to consider.
I assure my noble friend Lord Liverpool that I will exercise care over the next few weeks. I have heard enough in the House this afternoon to be fully aware that this matter is not taken lightly. I assure all in your Lordships' House that I shall not take it lightly. Indeed, when I enter into the final series of meetings with the brewers I shall be concerned to ensure that all noble Lords' views are taken into account.
The contribution that puzzled me the greatest was that of the noted Cross-Bencher, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. I have known and respected the noble Lord for a long time. I wondered whether he was changing his whole approach to the workings of the market until the penny dropped at the very end of his speech. The noble Lord said that we should bring into being the recommendations of the Erroll Committee back in 1973 on granting licences. Of course the easiest way to cure the problem is to abolish the licensing system. Do that, and we have no problems! The market will expand and customers will choose. But there are very good reasons why that is not possible. I doubt whether there would be many in your Lordships' House, if any at all, who would seek that kind of solution. It is because we are in that difficulty that we find ourselves in a difficult complex monopoly situation, as the report shows.
We have had an interesting debate. If I go further I shall begin to say things which those who look at markets may misinterpret. I am grateful for what many have said in the debate and I shall read all the contributions with considerable care.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, forgot that criticism of the report came from behind him, to his left, to his right as well as in front of him. It is fair to say that this has been a unique debate. In fact, 17 noble Lords have spoken and 15 from all sides of your Lordships' House have found little in favour of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report.
I have worked out that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, in fact represented 6½ per cent. of our debate. The reduction in her percentage from 25 per cent. in no way reduces the importance of her contribution and her reflection of the problems in the Midlands.
We are all grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro for his contribution. It may be his last week of duty as our prayer Bishop, but it is certainly not his last chance to contribute to our deliberations.
All of us on both sides feel that much of what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said is worthy of further and deeper consideration. My noble friend asked us to give him an answer—I have his speech here which he was kind enough to send up to me—and study what he put forward about a threshold over and above which the national brewers would have to lease their houses to independent tenants at arm's length. That is little better than saying that they should be allowed to own only 2,000 houses. I am

1477
sorry, but I have to tell him after consultation that that is a totally impracticable proposition.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will forgive me and I am sure my noble friend consulted extensively with the whole industry, but the industry must reflect on what I have said and look at it carefully. Let us not come to any premature judgments.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I accept that point, but I am giving an initial reaction to what my noble friend asked. My noble friend Lord Thomas showed us the extent of the legal tangle into which we may get. It is the Government's job to sort that out. It is not our job to do so. But we may find ourselves in a very difficult and serious situation.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing because by his speech he succeeded in getting an undertaking from the Government which lays to rest the problem that we have all feared about the tie and its effect on clubs. It is a much more complicated issue than any of us thought before we started the debate. I really wonder what the hurry is. I hope we shall not rush into bringing forward the orders or even the primary legislation that is needed. After the debate we should go away as my noble friend has suggested and consult and reflect, because one of the reflections that must be faced is that the debate has shown that there is certainly no majority for any of these proposals. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Control of Pollution (Amendment) Bill
6.27 p.m.
Lord Gregson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Gregson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of Listowel in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 [Restrictions on power under section 2]:
Lord Gregson Lord Gregson moved the amendment:
Page 3, line 35, at end insert ("or
(c) in the opinion of the authority, it is undesirable for the applicant to be authorised to transport controlled waste because the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence of technical competence and financial soundness for that purpose.").
The noble Lord said: I ask the Committee to bear with me while I present this amendment, simply because it is an extremely complex matter with a long history in your Lordships' House. It is intended to give the Secretary of State powers to help eliminate the cowboys from the waste disposal industry by requiring carriers of controlled waste to show that they are technically competent and financially sound before they can be registered under the Bill.
Control of the waste disposal industry is provided for by the Control of Pollution Act 1974. It relies on the waste disposal authorities within local government to control the disposal of waste of all kinds. So that they shall be fully effective, we must give them the powers that they need.
In their Green Paper published earlier this year the Government have proposed to strengthen waste disposal control by three methods: first, to introduce a duty of care on all the producers; secondly, the registration of carriers; thirdly, a requirement for technical competence and financial soundness of operators of waste disposal sites. That is the cradle-to-grave control recommended by your Lordships' Select Committee in 1981.
The weak link in the Government's proposals is the registration of carriers. The Bill which we are now discussing is in line with their proposals. It allows waste disposal authorities to refuse registration in only two cases: if the application is on the wrong form or if the applicant has been convicted of a relevant offence. In my opinion that begs the question. What good is a registration if waste disposal authorities are obliged to register as carriers anyone, however suspect, until he has been convicted of an offence?
My amendment will have the effect of providing a more effective register, with evidence of the competence and financial soundness of the carriers. An effective register is in the interests of the public, the producers of waste and the carriers. I stress that the public want the standard of waste disposal improved across the board.
If the Government's Bill comes before Parliament next year, producers will be subject to the duty of care. They will wish to know that the registered carriers are competent and therefore by employing them they are prime facie complying with the duty of care. Good carriers will not want unfair competition from bad carriers who cheat the system. The amendment proposes that carriers should have the same requirement of technical competence and financial soundness which the Government propose for site operators.
In another place Mrs. Bottomley replied on behalf of the Government at Third Reading of the Bill:
"We need a register of carriers of waste so that those who have a legitimate wish to continue their business feel secure that the people to whom they have entrusted their waste will satisfactorily meet the necessary standards".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/4/89; col. 1242.]
Furthermore, two House of Lords Science and Technology Committee reports (published in 1981 and 1989) called for the effective registration of carriers. The 1981 report stated:
"Licensing of sites, while being essential, is rather like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted if it is not coupled with licensing of the earlier stages of operation—those engaged in collection, transport, storage and disposal. Here accidents can occur, wastes can disappear or profits can be raised by skimping on control procedures; and the ease with which anyone with a lorry can set himself up as a disposal contractor is alarming".
The 1989 report commented:
"Registration should be dependent on evidence of technical competence and financial soundness, equivalent to that which is proposed by the Government for site operators. Such a requirement would help to eliminate the "cowboy" carriers and

1479
would be welcomed by producers as an assurance that they were dealing with responsible carriers and were thus complying with the duty of care. The Secretary of State for the Environment wanted to place the responsibility for vetting carriers on producers and objected to the introduction of a closed shop by means of registration. Even if registration had that effect, the Committee would prefer a closed shop of competent carriers to a free for all among incompetent carriers".
I am aware that the Road Traffic Acts require licensing of transport vehicles, but they exclude any vehicle below 3½ tonnes. That exclusion means that a great many vehicles used for fly-tipping and dumping hazardous waste fall straight through the net.
I am also fully aware that strengthening the register in this manner will have to be carefully co-ordinated with the words of the Transport of Dangerous Substances Acts 1981 and 1986. But I am sure that giving the Secretary of State these additional powers will make the task easier for the producers of waste to meet their obligations under the duty of care which the Government intend to introduce.
The duty of care is onerous, particularly if the waste is hazardous or special as defined by the Control of Pollution Act. The transport of special waste is closely defined by the 1981 and 1986 Acts. The requirements are that: the vehicle is fit for the purpose and tanks are regularly examined and tested; precautions are taken against fire and explosion; the vehicle operator and driver have information available to make them aware of the risks created by that substance and such information is available in writing in the cab; and the driver has received adequate instruction and training to enable him to understand the dangers and what to do in an emergency. The Act also makes requirements for the competence of the carrier and financial resources. Those provisions are already on the statute book. I am concerned to get them read across on to the list of carriers.
My concern is that industry, and especially small companies, will require the maximum help in meeting the duty of care. In the spirit of the comments made by Mrs. Bottomley in another place, I ask the Minister whether he is prepared to allow local authorities to include on the list of carriers those who offer the special service in order to assist industry to comply with the duty of care. The qualified carriers would welcome that, as would the producers and the local authorities. The public would feel much more assured and the cowboys would be frozen out. I look forward with interest to hearing the Government's comments.
Baroness White: I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend. I was a member of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology which recently considered the matter. I was not a member of the committee which sat in 1981 but a long time has passed since then. A recent report was placed before your Lordships' House to which I should like to draw attention.
In the Second Reading of the Bill great stress was placed on the difficulties in obtaining any kind of conviction of the fly-tippers, particularly in London. Although the problem is more serious in London,
1480
especially in respect of builders' waste, there are also problems in the country. I used to own a cotttage in mid-Wales and half a mile away was a disused quarry. One had to experience to believe the trouble which we had with fly-tipping in that remote and delectable rural area. Every kind of disagreeable waste, not especially special or hazardous, could be tipped in there late in the evening or early in the morning. The local police to whom we complained from time to time said that they had no chance of identifying or catching those responsible.
The question of fly-tipping is widespread. As a member of the Select Committee I strongly support its recommendations. They specifically include the proposals in the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Gregson. We are strongly in favour of registration but we want to have effective registration. It cannot be based almost exclusively upon the conviction of someone for a proscribed offence. Obviously that must be a relevant consideration but there are situations where it is extraordinarily difficult to convict and yet one may have a very strong supposition that the persons concerned are not proper or adequate people to carry out that particular function. The only way in which one can estimate that objectively is, as is suggested by the amendment before the Committee, that evidence should be produced to the registration authority of technical competence and financial soundness for the purpose.
In considering this we must take into account the opinions of the Secretary of State for the Environment, because he personally gave evidence to the committee. I have here the transcript of that evidence. He took a very detached view indeed of registration and in replying to Question 172 he said:
"Registration will simply provide a list of those carriers who have not been convicted of a serious pollution offence"—
in other words, a completely negative criterion and no suggestion that we should make any attempt to bring suitability for the operation into account. Mr. Ridley was quite clear that his main concern was to avoid anything which might be considered a closed shop. However, as my noble friend said, the committee dismissed that argument put forward by him and made it quite clear that it thought that the social problems and the health dangers of fly-tipping were even greater dangers than a closed shop.
When the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, a member of the Select Committee, asked the Secretary of State at Question 175 whether he really thought that that negative criterion for registration—that is, simply not having been convicted of a serious pollution offence—would give adequate protection against the opportunities which present themselves to cowboys to get into this business, the Secretary of State replied:
"I never know whether cowboys is a term of endearment or censure".
There was a certain flippancy in his whole approach to this question. I feel that my noble friend Lord Gregson is absolutely justified in putting before the Committee the proposed amendment to the Bill which would strengthen it in a way which the Select Committee considered very carefully and which we felt was an essential part of the proposed legislation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should like to add my support to my noble friend's amendment. This Bill is in itself an attempt to strengthen the law. That is what it is about. It has been brought forward because the existing law is not adequate to the purpose.
There are two ways of strengthening legislation of this kind. The first is to increase penalties, and there is some move towards that in the Bill although it is not the main thrust of the Bill. The second is to remove opportunities to commit an offence and I applaud the thrust of this amendment to remove opportunities for the commission of the very nasty and anti-social offence of fly-tipping.
I remind the Committee that this is a very modest amendment. It does not say that local authorities shall have a free hand to refuse applications. It certainly does not give rise to the fears expressed in some quarters that it might lead to a closed shop of contractors who alone would have the privilege of disposing of waste. It says only that the local authorities may refuse applications because there is insufficient evidence of technical competence and financial soundness for that purpose.
If contractors can show that they are financially sound and technically competent, it is no help for the local authority to know that it has nearly caught them on a number of occasions in fly-tipping offences but has not been able to make the offence stick by achieving a conviction in the courts. The dependence of Clause 3(l)(b) on the fact that an applicant has been convicted of a prescribed offence, as my noble friend Lady White makes clear, is simply not adequate. The whole point of the Bill is that people are not being convicted of offences because the law is not adequate to secure convictions. Therefore, to rely on past convictions under the existing legislation before the introduction of this Bill is not an adequate protection. It does not give the local authorities an opportunity to use the register with due discretion and due concern for the rights of contractors in a rather more effective way than is provided for in the Bill as drafted.
I very much hope that this amendment, which is a modest and not in any way a dramatic change to the Bill, will achieve the support of the Government, the Committee and indeed another place when it goes back there.
6.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, for his concern about the problems of waste disposal which have led him to table this amendment. I know he has a long record of interest in waste management and I am most pleased that he has agreed to chair the Waste Management Industry Training and Advisory Board to continue his involvement.
I fully understand the reasons why the noble Lord has tabled this amendment but I hope to convince him that it is unnecessary in the first place and that, if it were to be introduced, it would place a very large burden on both local authorities and legitimate industry which could not be justified by the benefits to be gained.
1482
The registration system contained in the Bill did not seek to judge competence. It sought to be a simple list of carriers whom a waste producer could approach in the knowledge that anyone on that list had not been convicted of fly-tipping. This would be the first step but not the only one towards the producer's fulfilment of his duty of care. The register will work by removing from the register those carriers who are guilty of waste-related offences and by making waste producers very careful not to employ anyone who is not on that register, otherwise they, as well as the carrier, will be liable to prosecution. That is the intention of the register.
Reference has been made to the remarks made about the competence of registered carriers by the Secretary of State to the Science and Technology Committee. What the Secretary of State was describing was the duty of care by which a producer will be required to take all reasonable steps to ensure the legal disposal of his waste. The first step towards fulfilling that duty will be to use a carrier who is registered with the waste disposal authority. The register will act as a "white list" of carriers who have not been convicted of waste-related offences.
Beyond the first step of using a registered carrier, the producer will be required to take certain other steps. These will be contained in a code of practice which is now being prepared, but the additional steps are likely to include the producer providing adequate information on the waste sufficient to allow the carrier to handle it correctly, receiving a transfer note from the carrier and being satisfied to the best of his knowledge that the vehicle is suitable to carry the waste. As long as the producer has satisfied his duty of care he will not be open to prosecution. Questions of the competence of the carrier will not be addressed through the register but through other enquiries that a producer might make to satisfy himself that the carrier is a responsible person.
The noble Lord seeks to introduce a new power for waste disposal authorities to satisfy themselves of the competence and financial soundness of a carrier. These are no simple matters, and moreover they are matters which would be totally new to local authorities. A whole new system would need to be devised for local authorities whereby they could judge competence and financial soundness. Moreover for most carriers this would duplicate existing controls of the Department of Transport.
The Department of Transport already controls both vehicle operators and the carriage of dangerous goods. Through operator licensing, the vehicle licensing authorities require evidence of good repute, professional competence and financial soundness.
These authorities are able to refuse or revoke a licence to anyone who does not satisfy their requirements, and as far as professional competence is concerned the applicant must pass a written examination. Operator licences apply only to those who operate vehicles of over 3·5 tonnes gross weight. I know that this is a matter which greatly concerns the noble Lord and I shall return to that issue in a moment, but first I should like to outline the other controls that the Department of Transport puts on the carriage of dangerous substances.

1483
These dangerous substances include all our special waste, and, indeed, we shall be issuing a consultation paper on special wastes very soon which will propose a much wider definition so that even more waste substances will fall under the dangerous substances regulations. These regulations require that operators should obtain full details of the substance to be carried and ensure that the driver has these details and knows what to do in an emergency. The operators must use vehicles which are fit for the purpose and which have been regularly examined and tested. Drivers must have received training in relation to their own duties under the regulations to enable them to understand the dangers of the substance being carried and, equally important, what to do in an emergency. All dangerous substances are to be properly contained, packaged and labelled. These regulations apply to the carriage of dangerous substances in all sizes of vehicle.
The Government therefore believe that these requirements meet the needs for detailed operational control over the carriers of waste for the majority of owners. We accept that the licensing controls do not cover the use of vehicles of less than 3·5 tonnes gross weight, though the regulations cover the use of such vehicles for the carriage of special waste.
If there is a gap in control from the Department of Transport, it lies in the carriage of non-special waste in light goods vehicles. I do not believe that this gap presents a serious risk. The amount of waste that can be carried in light goods vehicles is relatively small and non-special waste does not present a danger to life. Therefore, any individual carrier using a light goods vehicle for the carriage of non-special waste would not present a significant hazard to the public or to the environment by the carriage of that waste.
However, let us consider what the proposed powers for local authorities would add to the provisions of the Bill. An applicant might demonstrate both competence and financial backing. This might be of extra use to producers in using the register but does not mean that the carrier will not contravene waste disposal law. The cowboy carrier might find it relatively easy to demonstrate these qualities to the satisfaction of the authority, but it is his criminal intent that will lead to the fly-tipping.
The real remedy as with all crime is to catch the fly-tipper, prosecute him and remove him from the register so that he cannot legitimately be employed to carry waste again. The answer does not lie in setting up a new licensing system which would enter new areas of competence for local authorities and duplicate a system already in existence for the larger vehicles. There surely cannot be a justification for requiring a HGV operator to satisfy two authorities of the same information. To extend the requirements for technical competence and financial soundness to light goods vehicles might bring in the operators of as many as 2 million extra vehicles under control.
The noble Lord, Lord Gregson, said that he seeks to provide a power for the Government to introduce tests of competency and financial soundness if at some future date they wish to do so. The
1484
Government do not believe the extra burdens that this amendment would place on both local authorities and legitimate businesses could be justified by the benefit to the producer of having additional information on the competence of the carrier on the register. The Government do not feel the need for any reserve power in the Bill. In reality, the fact that the noble Lord proposed this measure as a reserve power would be quickly forgotten and the Government would be pressed very hard to include it in the regulations.
I therefore believe that this amendment, though worthy in its motives, is unnecessary for the purposes of the Bill and would significantly change the character of the register that the Bill will introduce. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will be able to resist it.
Lord Gregson: I confine myself to two points. First, the Minister replied explicitly, but this is only an enabling amendment. It does not cause the Government to do anything if they do not want to do so. Secondly, I can see no reason, if someone is qualified under the transport Acts to carry special substances, why that endorsement cannot be entered on the list of carriers. I can see no reason unless the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport actually exist in two different countries with very poor communication! In my opinion there is no reason whatever why that endorsement cannot be transferred across to the carriers list to give those small companies that have to deal with the burden of the duty of care—which I fully endorse—some very good information with which to find a carrier with confidence, because that is what the law requires. Therefore, I must press my amendment.
6.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 45.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Listowel, E.

Ailesbury, M.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Airedale, L.

McNair, L.

Amherst, E.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Birdwood, L.

Mayhew, L.

Blyth, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Bottomley, L.

Nicol, B.

Carter, L.

Northfield, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Peston, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Raglan, L.

David, B.

Rugby, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Seear, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Tordoff, L.

Ennals, L.

UnderhiU, L.

Galpern, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gregson, L. [Teller.]

White, B. [Teller.]

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

1485

NOT-CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bauer, L.

Kimball, L.

Belstead, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boardman, L.

Long, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mancroft, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Nelson, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Norrie, L.

Colwyn, L.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Reay, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Rees, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rodney, L.

Ferrers, E.

Stockton, E.

Fortescue, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hacking, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hemphill, L.

Trenchard, V.

Henley, L.

Vinson, L.

Hesketh, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Spectacles and Sight Testing
7.5 p.m.
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what has been the effect on prices of changes in the law governing selling of spectacles and sight tests; and what further action they propose to improve competition and choice.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I ask this Question tonight so that we can assess progress in breaking down the opticians' monopoly. Those of us who have repeatedly over the last 10 years raised this issue are and always have been, asserting two main principles. We are saying first that competition is still badly needed in the commercial activity of selling spectacles. Even when National Health Service frames existed, what we might call fashion frames—the private frames—were always 70 per cent. of the market. So there has always been need for competition in this purely commercial activity.
Part of our case on competition has been that the cloak of professional prescribing and the sort of sanctity provided by a consulting room atmosphere have been used, sometimes quite brazenly, to cover overcharging for spectacles. The patient, as he is called, has been trapped in the consulting room, hardly able to go elsewhere. We assert that sight tests are in the main simple and mechancical and that spectacles are quite cheap applicances, as I shall show by particular examples. Our first assertion therefore is the need for competition.
The second has always been the issue of personal freedom. The Office of Fair Trading report in 1982 on opticians and competition talked of,
"personal freedom to choose a lower level of service for a lower price."
We say that it is for the individual to choose rather than being ordered in a paternalistic way to pay more by the state.
Progress in asserting these two principles in the 1980s has been entirely due to your Lordships' House. We have never had help of any note from the other place. It is noble Lords here in this Chamber who, on this minor matter—yet one of considerable importance to many people and particularly the elderly—have made the running in the last 10 years. Let us see what that progress has been.
I began raising this issue in 1979 after periods of raising it in the other place. In the early 1980s we had as the background the Price Commission reports and the reports on one particular company which dominates the market, Dollond and Aitchison. The first step forward was to persuade the: Government to exert pressure on the General Optical Council to allow the display of prices in the shops. That could still be better. Some displays in opticians, windows still do not show prices clearly enough. People are still being enticed inside without knowing the price of the goods they are going to buy. We must press on with that.
The second stage was when the Government, embarrassed by charges that prices were too high, set up the inquiry by the Office of Fair Trading. Its report came out in 1982. I shall not discuss the findings at any length. But the report said that there was room for something like a 28 per cent. price reduction if a smaller number of opticians carried out more tests instead of charging high prices to remain in business doing a few tests. The report was quite firm in saying that competition had some way to go in that respect.
The Government chose the soft option. The report said that if the Government wanted to make at least some progress they could agree that the selling of spectacles should be allowed by non-opticians provided people produced a recent prescription. It was the soft option. Instead of freeing the market openly, they would allow non-opticians in to do the selling provided people brought along a prescription. They encouraged people to shop around. Interestingly, the Government took the powers away from the General Optical Council to make rules in this area. They gave up the General Optical Council deciding that there was no hope there of liberalisation. The Government had to take powers to make the changes by direct orders in council. So it has remained.
The third breakthrough occurred when this House by a free vote agreed to recommend the selling of over-the-counter reading glasses—ready glazed spectacles. That had not been easy. We had had to push the Government through two previous stages. We had to persuade them that there was no harm to sight in wearing the wrong spectacles. I remember that for years spokesmen from the Government Front Bench spoke about the harm to people's eyes if they wore the wrong spectacles. We had to get rid of that idea in the early 1980s. The Government made a complete volte face and finally agreed that they did not do any harm although they might give people headaches and it was perhaps stupid to wear

1487
the wrong ones. Secondly, we had to convince the Government that presbyopia, the kind of problem from which I suffer and which arises as one grows older, is not a disease. It means that one needs spectacles to magnify. That took a good deal of work, particularly by my noble friend Lord Rugby who has been a hero throughout the whole dispute with the opticians and with the Government during the 1980s. At last the Government conceded on that point too. Yes, presbyopia is no longer a disease; it is a wearing out of the muscles that focus. It happens to most people over the age of 40.
We also hoped that reading spectacles would help in another way—by showing cheap spectacles on sale in the shops, ready glazed. This would make the others look expensive, as they are in so many cases. The very cheapness ought to be showing up the exaggerated prices of spectacles made up to prescription. We hoped that that would be an added benefit of putting reading spectacles on sale.
Those are three stages through which we pushed the Government. We approached a fourth stage. I refer to the business on which we have had some news in the past week. The Government, full of confidence now and pushing the frontiers further, so we thought, announced that we would have two-tier eye tests. In other words, one could pay a simple fee or perhaps nothing at all for a simple refraction test, or one could pay the full fee and have the so-called medical test as well. It was an issue of personal freedom, a matter dear to the heart of myself and those who campaigned with me. However, in the past week, the Government unhappily have fallen on their face. The resistance in the Back Bench committee of the Conservative Party in another place to the proposal of two-tier testing has made the Minister run away, defeated, tail between his legs and unable to push it through Parliament. I am sad that he has shied at this fourth fence which we hoped he would mount, full of enthusiasm after the progress we had made in the 1980s.
We are now up against something else, which will tie in with the two-tier eye test, about which I shall say a word later. Now, in the optical world, high technology computerised machinery—the autorefractor and the autotester that goes with it—does the testing of eyes automatically without the need for the so-called professional testing. This is pushing the frontiers of technology a good deal further. It will force the pace anyway, and it will mean that we shall have to go to two-tier eye tests because progress of this kind cannot be resisted for long.
In the middle of all this progress—I shall come to examples of what is happening now—the Government stopped free sight tests. That was a mistake. It was absolutely premature, as the figures now show. The number of sight tests taken has fallen by 30 per cent. generally and by 40 per cent. in many areas. People are staying away from the optician. This is sad because, although those of us who believe in being able to buy reading spectacles in this way will continue to press for freedoms, we also believe passionately that everyone should have a regular sight test because it is sensible for them to do so.
How could it ever have been expected, as the Minister hoped, that the industry would begin to provide free sight tests? Free sight tests with that degree of imperfect competition? This was the chance for another fee which opticians had always been able to get in this industry by a degree of overcharging, as has been highlighted in various reports. Secondly, could we really have expected it, given good will? Would any optician give a free sight test and provide a prescription to somebody so that he could shop around, as the Minister wanted, only to find that that person had taken the prescription to another shop to have it made up? The idea was doomed from the start. It was not able to stand on its own feet as something that was likely to succeed once it was linked with shopping around and once the prescription was in the person's hand. I deplore the ending of free sight tests. The Government were hoping for a degree of competition that was not about to take place. The industry is not yet competitive enough. We have not pushed it into a new period of real competition.
For the rest of my remarks I want to talk not about the progress we have made in this Chamber, in Parliament and in the law, but about what is happening in the high street. I have done my own research and shopping around for reading spectacles. I have been to four or five main stores—Boots, Debenhams, Selfridges, Dollond and Aitchison and one of the new shops that specialises in making up spectacles. I should like to tell noble Lords what I found.
I went into Debenhams, which is part of the Burton group. I went to the optical department and saw no reading spectacles. I said to the girl, "Where are your reading spectacles?" She replied, "Oh, we just have a few but we don't put them on show". I said, "Why not?" She replied, "We haven't enough space". I said, "But these racks are half empty. You have plenty of space in this shop". She replied, "Well, I don't know, you will have to ask the manager. Anyway, I will go and find them for you. We don't put them on show. We keep them in a box in the storeroom". The girl went away and came back with a tin box from the storeroom. She opened it up and produced six, eight or perhaps 10—no more than that—sample frames. Many of them were alike so there was no real choice. I asked the price, She said, "Those are £14.95 and these are £16.95". I can tell the House that the cost to the retailer of the spectacles I saw is about £2 or £4. It is a complete racket.
I went on to Selfridges. I found a tiny display on the counter in the optical department. I asked, "How much are they?" The price was £15—very little. The whole point is to shore up the price as high as possible in order not to show how expensive are the others on display for private making up. Dollond and Aitchison had a poor selection, also in a tin box. It was clearly disparaged by the young lady trying to serve me. It was implied that they were no good. That was not exactly said but it was clearly hinted at, the purpose being to interest me in something much more expensive and elaborate.
Reading spectacles are not on proper display—I can say that from touring these shops—and their

1489
prices are too high. I have now told your Lordships—I hope it will be known outside—that the true cost to the retailer of reading spectacles of nearly all the kinds that I know now is somewhere between £2 and £4. Their price in the shops should not be more than £8 or £10. Ridiculous prices of £14·95 and £16·95 are totally unjustified.
I was sorry to see that one of the shops which, following the liberalisation in the middle of the 1980s, opened to do the making up without an optician present had joined in the racket. It had found, I suppose, that profits were easy to make and so had joined the act. The Glass Shop, which I praised in an earlier speech in the House, had only one or two frames on display and one or two in a drawer. Most of the shop was given over to fancy fashion frames costing £50, £70 or £80. Money is too easily made and the competition is imperfect. As far as I could see, the company had joined in the act.
One of the reasons for the fact that the concept of reading spectacles has not yet taken off is that the Government have issued no publicity. There has been no public education; indeed, you cannot find any indication on the walls of the doctor's surgery telling you that if you need a spare pair of spectacles you can get them as reading spectacles. People are not encouraged to know their prescription; but people should know what their prescription is. I know what mine is, as I know the size of my shoes. It is 125 dioptres for distance and 325 for reading. It is not difficult. People have been mesmerised into thinking that spectacle prescription is a highly complicated scientific business. However, for the vast majority of people—I do not say for all—that just is not so.
The big hope which we have is the emergence of companies such as the one called Crown Eye Glass, in which I have no commercial interest whatever. The company is selling spectacles called "Readyspecs". An interesting thing happended in that connection. The Daily Mail published a feature about the high cost of spectacles on 24th April. As a result the company sent the writer of the article a pair of "Readyspecs". She then wrote another article stating how marvellous they were. The spectacles start at £2·99 and the top price for the most elaborate fashion model is £9·99. She said that she was writing the column wearing a £4·99 pair which fitted perfectly, which were more comfortable, which gave her better vision and which looked just as expensive as the specs that she had bought two weeks previously which had cost £84. That, of course, was from another shop.
The result is this: I have with me the first 120 letters written to the company by people who read that column. Most of them say, "Where can I buy these spectacles? I did not know that we could buy them so cheaply. I am a pensioner and I have been conned into paying £80 for a pair of spectacles. Please, where can I buy Readyspecs? What can you do for me?"
The Government must do something about publicity. It should be pointed out that this is legal; people should know that they can buy spare or
1490
replacement pairs of spectacles. People should continue to have eye tests when they need them, but they should know that the freeom to buy exists. It was clear from many of the letters to which I referred that most people did not know that this freedom existed. The correct price range is that offered by Crown Eye Glass. It is the sort of range of which I approve; namely, £2·99 to £9·99.
The company now tells me that it has a thousand stockists; there are 90 Crown Optical Centres, as they call them; and the way they are working is not with the 300 or 400 per cent. mark-up which has been common in the optical trade, but with a 100 per cent. mark-up. In my view that is legitimate. It is competition beginning to work.
However, such companies then have to suffer from the dirty tricks trade. For example, people go into an optician to receive their prescription and the optician says to them. "Where will you have your spectacles made up?" The person say, "Oh a new cheap place just across the road." The optician then says, "What, are you going to those cowboys over there? You should not trust them." Therefore this company—and I suppose others like it which will come into the business—is fighting a great deal of the dirty tricks in order to get cheapness open to the public.
I am conscious of time so I come: finally to the price of spectacles made up to prescription. The average price of 1987 was given by the Federation of Ophthalmic and Dispensing Opticians as £58·14. I suppose that the figure must by now be well over £60. My own experience, again from shopping in the shops which I mentioned earlier—some of which were quite disgraceful—is that spectacles are still on display at ridiculous prices of £60, £80, and even £130 for the frame alone. Let me give your Lordships the true prices for them, as I did in respect of the ready-made spectacles. A plain lens, a non-complicated one of up to four dioptres costs somewhere between £2 and £4 a pair for the lens made by reputable firms such as Pilkingtons. A bifocal lens costs between £6 to £8.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships another example. I have with me a pair of bifocal spectacles. I broke one lens. I have taken it to various opticians during the past few weeks asking them for a quotation for replacing that one lens. The lowest quotation I have received is £24. The more general quotation I have received has been £30. Moreover, on top of that, I was told that as my prescription had run out I needed to pay £10 to have another eye test. Therefore, to replace a £4 lens in my spectacles the price would be about £40. That sort of racketeering must be stopped. We must force the pace of competition much further.
If you want to add on to the cost of the lens the cost of the frame, I can tell your Lordships that the most popular type of frame today costs the retailer somewhere in the region of £5 to £15. The most popular price is about £11 to £12. If you add the cost of the lens—which is £2 to £4, or perhaps a little more for bifocals—and the cost of the frame together and give a 100 per cent. mark up, which I think is fair, then the cost of a pair of spectacles made up to prescription today ought to be between £20 and £35. It should not be the £60, £80, £100 or

1491
even more about which people have written to the Daily Mail and to others. That is in line with what the Office of Fair Trading found in its report in 1982. It said that there was room for about a 30 per cent. reduction in the average price. We must get that reduction.
What about the future? I think that the future lies partly in the computerised machine called the autorefractor. I ask the Minister to send his officials to Sweden to see the machine operating. There, non-qualified people—that is non-opticians—are able to use it and sell spectacles. It prints automatically by computerised high technology. It prints out your prescription for you as you look into the machine when it is manipulated by the operator, who will have taken only an hour and a half to learn how to use it. It is foolproof and the president of the opticians, or one of the groups opticians, has confirmed that the machine is foolproof and says that no one should have any doubts about it.
The future has to be with that kind of system. We must return to two-tier testing in some form, allowing people to have a cheap test if they so wish. Then we must allow non-opticians to carry out that cheaper test, using the autorefractor and not needing the optician to do it. It is done in a matter of minutes and the computerisation of the system is a guarantee of the way that it operates in giving you a simple refraction print-out of your prescription.
I propose to place one of these machines on exhibition in your Lordships' House during the next few months so that noble Lords will be able to see just what these machines are and how they operate. This is the future and we cannot stop the march of scientific progress in this way. Moreover, we cannot stop the increase in competition which ought to take place. I still regard the prices of spectacles in our country as being nothing less than a scandal. We must continue to press quietly but determinedly to get those prices down.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, that was a typically fierce speech given by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. Is it not funny that he has this real bee in his bonnet, as has the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, about spectacles? Spectacles are things which we do not have to buy every week, as we do bottles of wine or food. In the ordinary course of events, even when you reach my great age, and perhaps even the noble Lord's great age, you do not have to buy spectacles more than every two years. I have had my present spectacles for about three years and they are doing me no harm. Therefore it is much more equivalent to buying, say, a motor car; it is not like buying food. There is no need to see the matter as being a scandal where people are being put in a state of penury as a result of having to spend £50 once a week in order to buy a pair of spectacles. It is not like that.
The noble Lord talked about the opticians' monopoly. That issue goes back to the early 1980s when it was pointed out how dreadful the system was. However, opticians have always been in competition. They are professionals in their
1492
business. He wants them to have to compete with someone else. I shall return to my motor car analogy. Motor cars can only be produced by professionals because, apart from anything else, in no other way can they comply with all the government regulations. The noble Lord is saying that we should be prepared to buy our motor cars from someone who makes them in a back yard.
Lord Northfield: No.
Lord Mottistone: It is that type of thing. It is not unreasonable for certain types of goods to be produced by professionals who are in competition the one with the other. Opticians have been doing that all along.
The noble Lord then went on to boast—I thought rather excessively—with his great skill and experience, about how he managed in the House to get these things done by the Government.
Lord Northfield: No.
Lord Mottistone: That is how it came out. The noble Lord should read what he said. Having boasted as much as he could, he then castigated the Government for not going further—but everyone does that particularly when they are in opposition. I remember it well.
The noble Lord made one or two other points. Let us come to his Question, because what he said did not bear on the Question that he asked. He said that the Government should give more publicity to the latest regulations. The Government are not in the business of publicity. If one has freed the market—I agree that it has been freed—it is up to the marketeers to publicise themselves. I am advised that widespread advertising and publicity have dispelled some of the false notions that it costs £80 to buy a pair of spectacles. If people do not read the right advertisements, that is their fault. When I read a newspaper I almost invariably skip over the advertisement pages because it is much the safer way to get on in life—not permanently to be dragged in this or that direction and persuaded to buy something. Not that I can afford to buy much. I believe that the noble Lord over-exaggerated the lack of publicity.
The noble Lord then told us some stories about retailers selling the new over-the-counter spectacles. He quoted two retailers who were not in the business previously. They have taken up the business but not as seriously as he would like them to. They are ordinary retailers selling a product in the market. If they can sell it at a price at which he says they should be able to and make a 100 per cent. mark-up, why are they not doing that? Why does it matter if they are not? Why does the noble Lord want to insist that retailers should be forced to present their products in a way that he thinks proper rather than in the way that they as professional salesmen know is necessary when they are trying to sell the product? He is exaggerating the need to do anything else at the moment.
The noble Lord did not mention NHS vouchers for people on low incomes because that did not suit

1493
his argument. They have made a great difference to such people. His argument will not affect them one way or the other. They will still obtain their spectacles cheaply. There are several million such people. Many of them require proper spectacles because they are elderly or going blind. I do not believe that he would argue with that. One million people a year are referred by optometrists to their doctors. If the noble Lord carries his story to its logical conclusion, they will not be encouraged to have tests and obtain the proper spectacles. Those people could be at risk.
What the noble Lord has done so far has made more people not want to buy proper spectacles because he persuaded the Government that the eyesight test should be charged for.
Lord Northfield: No.
Lord Mottistone: It was his campaign which produced that result. Charging for eyesight tests puts people off having one. They cost £ 10 or so, which adds to the cost of the spectacles.
Lord Northfield: My Lords—
Lord Mottistone: If the noble Lord wishes to respond to me he might like to stand.
Lord Northfield: The noble Lord is mistaken. I opposed charging for sight tests. I voted for them to remain free.
Lord Mottistone: I am afraid that I did not hear the noble Lord.
Lord Airedale: The noble Lord said that he opposed the charge.
Lord Mottistone: He might personally, but the campaign conducted by him and his colleagues led to that result. If they had never mounted their campaign, it would never have happened. That must be so. All that splendid boasting about how in the early 1980s the noble Lord went on and on and on badgering the Government and they did something is all part of it. He may not want it, but it is there.
I shall not spend as long as the noble Lord did, which was a long time for a debate of this sort, because I suspect that your Lordships would prefer that I did not. The autorefractor as an alternative to proper eye tests is a bogus argument. I shall not say much about it because I hope that my noble friend the Minister will have a few words to say about it, and I do not want to steal his thunder.
It is important to know what the machine does not do. It does not perform accurately on people, such as young children, with active focusing powers; it does not work well on people whose eyes are not entirely clear, for example, the elderly and people suffering from cataracts or other diseases which obscure the media of the eye; and, finally, it does not give a binocular result which is balanced between the two eyes and only treats each eye independently. The last point is of great importance for the comfort of the prescription and the proper functioning of the
1494
two eyes to avoid eye strain and perhaps double vision. All those factors are what one might call comfort factors.
The machine also does nothing to show whether disease is present. That is a matter which should not be neglected. We are not all subject to such problems, but that does not mean that the 1 million people who are reported every year to their doctors should not be helped in some way.
There is no evidence to answer the noble Lord's question as to what effect changes in the laws governing the selling of spectacles have had on prices. The full effect has yet to be seen. It is possible to obtain spectacles at the budget end of the market at prices comparable with those which the noble Lord believed to be reasonable. If he has not found them, I have. It is a question of whether one shops around and whether one is trying to prove one's point when one does so.
It is too early to say how the situation with regard to sight tests will settle down. It is sad if the noble Lord is right and people are frightened to have their eyes tested. They should not be because it will only cost them between £10 and £15—whether or not they obtain new spectacles, and sometimes they may not need to—every two or three years, however old they are, except for the exceptional cases. That is not a large sum of money. It is like buying one-and-a-half bottles of whisky every three years. I am sure that those who like drinking whisky would not find that nearly enough.
On the whole, it is sad that we have to have payment for tests. It will be interesting to see. I believe that the Minister's reply will be that the Government will not go for the two-tier testing system, and that suggests that he will persuade the General Optical Council to report in two years' time on the situation.
I conclude by saying that we must wait for the report. There is no point in plugging away at bees in one's bonnet on this subject at the moment. Let us wait and see what is reported in a year's time. If the report favours the noble Lord, Lord Northfield—which I hope it will not—he can be perfectly happy and pipe down. On the other hand, if he does not like the report—which I hope he will not as a matter of principle—he can renew his attack and I shall be happy to resist him.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, I suppose that if I were to nominate a personal subject, in the unlikely event that I were ever asked to go on "Mastermind", it would have to be "The Opticians Acts 1958 to 1988".
When I first became interested in the spectacle rackets of the post-war era, I was unaware that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, was already giving a spirited defence of the cause of the public against a caucus of what I suppose one might call "parliamentary gerrymanderers" engaged in sequestering for themselves and their accomplices a monopoly control of the spectacle market, together with its enormous profits. At the same time they were depriving the public of their absolute right to

1495
self-determination in all matters concerning their eyesight. Without the stand which he and a few other stalwarts took in the face of the abuse which was liberally heaped upon them at that time, the cause might have been lost once and for all.
There have been various committees instigated by governments, both before and during my lifetime, in order to bring order out of a chaotic situation. There was one in 1906, one in 1922, then again one in 1927 under Neville Chamberlain, and a further one in 1949 under Nye Bevan. All these investigations were as relevant then as they are now. Not one of them can be construed as having brought about a successful conclusion to the chaos.
The 1927 committee failed because at that time the relatively high fees charged by a limited number of qualified specialist ophthalmologists could not cope with the requirements for eye examinations demanded by insurance companies and friendly societies. Indeed, the ophthalmologists could not take on the demand which was being put upon them and the friendly societies were unable to pay their fees.
The opticians therefore were asked to fill in the gap. But they had insufficient medical training, they could not offer a medical diagnosis because their trade was one of refraction only and because they carried out that particular job, they demanded commensurate fees. Refraction is not a medical discipline and it cannot be.
Running alongside that at the time were the itinerant spectacle vendors, the market stall sellers and the Woolworth emporia, all selling reading glasses to a middle-aged and elderly community. The community comprised at least half the population, for whom reading, the library, the Bible and their prayer books comprised a large part of their world for religious worship, self-education and their livelihoods. They were paying 6 pence a time for their glasses. The ones I am wearing at the moment are now £2·99 and I may say I am wearing them as a result of an autorefractor test.
As a result of the Opticians Act 1958, the opticians were able to do away with all that competition and to recoup what they regarded as their rightful financial status, and a lot more besides, by exercising exclusive control over the market, combined with compulsory eye testing against prescriptions. These prescriptions then became their own printed currency, underwritten and honoured by the Department of Health and Social Security, but without any obligation to diagnose diseases of the eye and without the training or the disciplines of medicine. In these circumstances, the British public became, optically speaking, the most disfranchised, the most deprived, the most exploited in the whole world, not to mention the most overcharged.
Perhaps I may just quote one example, which is myself. I became a victim when I needed my first pair of national health glasses. I needed them for my livelihood as a farmer and I was able to obtain the issue of one prescription. The glasses were flimsy affairs, they lasted a fortnight before one lens dropped out. I had to wait three weeks before I could
1496
obtain a replacement, although the need was vital. I was told that extra pairs would be available, but only at extortionate costs, both to myself and to the taxpayer, of further eye tests. But those glasses were unsuitable for industrial wear and tear, quite unlike the wonderful motor cars to which the noble Lord has just referred. In the end, I got my friends and my family to keep me topped up from America. I pointed out, in a similar Unstarred Question about eight years ago, that at that time it was quicker and cheaper for me to fly with Freddie Laker on his Skytrain and pick up a couple of reading spectacles off the shelf in New York than to deal with a British optician.
Anybody would think that with the population in this deprived state, with only one pair of glasses each, there would have been a good market for people repairing them. In this desperate situation there were people who tried, but what happened? They were instantly prosecuted by the General Optical Council under criminal law. They were fined and their stock in trade confiscated.
Several millions of people today are dependent on their spectacles. Had it not been such a profitable line for the opticians, I believe that those people would have been advised at an earlier stage not to have those glasses. Many millions only wish to use spectacles after middle age for reading, like myself. But for years they have been denied the right to choose and have been conned into continuous costly eye testing with extortionate price-fixing accompanying the process. There are many thousands of children whose parents have been wrongly advised to educate the eyesight of their children into permanent spectacle servitude, rather than using the orthoptics technology which trains the developing child's eye to do without glasses.
I can only summarise by saying that the verdicts of the previous committees have, in the light of experience, been proven correct. The warnings which they gave have not been heeded by the Government. It is imperative that they should be accepted and accepted soon. At least we have got back our reading spectacles after 30 years—a right of choice which should never have been removed. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for sticking to his guns and for now bringing forward a new technology.
I shall give my reasons why that technology should not be given a restricted use warning such as we have had in regard to reading glasses in the past. An autorefractor gives an instant computer readout of the refraction of the eye. It does so with super accuracy and the operator does not have to be skilled. I understand that a sight test now costs £15 at an opticians but I have recently seen that engine drivers for British Rail will receive a full medical check-up for £10, which I may say probably also includes an autorefractor eye test.
It is highly important the customer requiring this computer information should have it available. It enables him to check his prescription; it enables him to know that he is not being cheated; it enables him to know that he no longer has to undergo an appointment system and a cross-examination and all that mumbo jumbo. The technology does not presume to offer any medical diagnosis, it informs

1497
the inquirer or customer of the physical state of his eyes. He is as much entitled to know his index of refraction—which is what the technology provides—as to know the thermal heat of his body by applying a thermometer to his mouth.
I hope that the noble Lord will not introduce any health arguments to counter the introduction of this new technology. We do not and never have gone to opticians for health checks. That has been amply demonstrated by previous reports which the Minister has it in his power to read.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I wonder whether it is proper for me to intervene in this marvellous debate between these two great campaigners, the noble Lords, Lord Mottistone and Lord Northfield, one of whom has for over 30 years been campaigning for whatever it is he is campaigning for. The other joined in late but has shown no less vigour. I pay my tribute to them as campaigners. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is a rugged and testy battler for the other side, whichever the side is. I feel that I am in the wrong place, and I hope that the Minister will help me out.
My noble friend Lord Northfield will understand that I do not share some of his feelings of excitement with this historic campaign for freedom of choice; this two-man campaign which has set out to change the world. Now apparently the two campaigners find their efforts have been thwarted by the brazen behaviour of opticians and their professional colleagues. However, I think my noble friend is quite right to draw attention to some examples of gross overcharging which the Government should inquire into. Some of the examples my noble friend gave should be examined very carefully.
However, I sometimes think that the two campaigners are more concerned with choice and competition than with eye health. I am concerned with the health of the nation. I realise that lots of other people are also concerned with that. I am not trying to boast. I was delighted to hear my noble friend mention his own attitude towards what I believe is the Government's iniquitous decision to impose charges for eye tests. My noble friend naturally opposed that. I did not hear the speech he made on an earlier occasion concerning that proposal, but he voted against it. I am as strongly opposed as my noble friend, and perhaps slightly more, to the decision the Government took at that time. I thought it was an appalling decision, and I do not know why the Minister embarked on that route. As I recall, no one gave him any support at the time. Everyone was unanimous in their criticism of the Minister when he proposed the two-tier system which has been referred to by my noble friend.
It took a little time before the Secretary of State recognised the lack of wisdom of his ways. Recently he has repealed that decision. The first decision by the Government, which was to impose charges for eye tests, had the consequences that some of us predicted. It has already provided a deterrent to people as regards undergoing sight tests. It is very disturbing that there has been a fall of between 30 and 40 per cent. in the number of sight tests. The
1498
noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said that £10 or £15 was not a high charge. Nevertheless, he and I thought at the time that the charge would be a deterrent for those on very modest incomes.
If the Government remove free sight tests, one must suppose that they do not attach very much importance to sight tests as a part of the National Health Service. The very fact that they decided that they would not include sight tests as a part of the National Health Service was an indication to many people that they did not place great value on the tests. I, however, do place great value on them. That decision of the Government was a great mistake, and has now proved to be a mistake. The Secretary of State proposed another device, which was the two-tier system. That, too, has been discredited. One million people a year are referred for medical attention following eye examinations because of the presence of eye disease, or indeed other systemic diseases such as high blood pressure. The main argument we presented at the time when the decision was taken to impose charges was that we wished to do nothing to discourage, and everything to encourage, patients to undergo regular eye tests, and not just when they felt there was a need.
Eye diseases are painless, symptomless and advance to a stage where treatment is extremely difficult or impossible before the patient is sufficiently aware of them to seek referral. We argued that it is only routine eye examinations which allow the early detection of disease. We argued that it is early detection which is so important to the eventual outcome of treatment. That view is widely held by ophthalmologists and it is widely held by Members of your Lordships' House. We can already begin to see the consequences of the lack of wisdom of the Government's policies. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the proposal put forward by his right honourable friend as regards a two-tier system gained no support from any sections of the profession, nor yet from any community consumer groups which are concerned with people's health.
I hope that the Government will not come up with any more bright ideas to disrupt the professions working in the field. It is not as if many measures have not already been taken in this field. I sympathise with optometrists when they say that they have had five years of competition changes, and that perhaps it is time to let things stay as they are for a while. In 1984 the deregulation of the dispensing of spectacles took place. Optometrists were permitted to advertise, and the Government withdrew the National Health Service range of spectacles. In the next few years optometrists were subject to regulations which required them to hand each patient a copy of his prescription. Personally, I warmly welcomed that provision and I think it is good professional practice.
In the past few years optometrists have, while maintaining their professionalism, risen to the challenge of the new situation by producing a wide range of information for patients and consumers at large in order to inform them of the services which they can obtain from optometry, and to give them general information on the importance of looking after their eyes. No one can say that optometrists

1499
have not risen to meet the new situation which the Government have imposed upon them. That situation was further disrupted at the end of last year by the imposition of the privatisation of the eye test for 60 per cent. of the population. As a result of the Government's decision to withdraw the two-tier sight test, the General Optical Council is co-operating with the association of optometrists and other optical bodies in order to undertake a review over the next 12 months of the eye examination service in this country. I warmly welcome that decision.
My noble friend referred to the autorefractor, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rugby. I think that it is accepted as being an extremely useful tool for an optometrist or an eye doctor in the initial screening of a patient. However, it cannot be denied that it gives no information whatsoever about the health of the eyes. It contributes useful but inadequate information about the optical powers of the eyes, but further professional interpretation and tests must be carried out before an acceptable prescription can be provided for each patient.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said that as people get older their eyes become less clear. This piece of machinery is less effective both for the elderly and for the young. So anyone who assumes that this is a bright new piece of technology which will remove the need for eye testing is mistaken. Nevertheless, I hope there will be development of this particular piece of machinery.
I hope the Government will not embark upon new proposals like the proposals of the Secretary of State on the two-tier system. As with the rest of the health service, optometrists should be allowed to get on with their own jobs. There has been excessive interference in this field by the Government. They interfered with the system of sight tests and then proposed two-tier sight test charges. I think it is time the professions were allowed to get on with their work. I certainly agree with my noble friend that the Government should look at any examples of gross overcharging in the interests of patients. However, I think we have had enough of new proposals which, although they may have been designed to improve the health service, have proved to have exactly the opposite effect. I look forward with interest to the Minister's reply.
8 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think we can say that we have had a rather interesting debate this evening, with diametrically opposed views coming from different sides of the House. I am not sure that it will be possible for me to satisfy all noble Lords. I do not see how I could satisfy both the noble Lords, Lord Northfield and Lord Rugby, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone.
Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. The debate gives us the opportunity to reflect upon the success of recent legislation affecting our optical services and to acknowledge that even though the ophthalmic profession has faced
1500
a number of important changes in recent years we still see—I am confident that we shall continue to see—the same high standard of care and professionalism that we have come to expect.
Perhaps it may be helpful if I first recap and remind noble Lords of the progress and notable achievements this Government have made in reforming the optical services in recent years. In December 1984 the opticians' sole right to sell spectacles ended and the market was opened up for the first time to allow unregistered suppliers the right to supply prescription spectacles. In July 1986 the NHS spectacle scheme was replaced by the NHS voucher scheme, the new scheme providing a more effective way of targeting financial help for spectacles to those in need. On 1st April 1989 legislation was introduced to allow the sale of ready-made reading glasses without prescription to those over the age of 16. Noble Lords will recall that, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, mentioned, we agreed to abide by the principle of a vote in this House last summer when noble Lords concluded that it was right that reading glasses should be available without prescription to those over the age of 16.
The noble Lord asked about the effect the changes in legislation have had on prices. The change in spectacle provision has resulted in a wide range of competitively priced spectacle frames becoming available on the market. I understand that some companies are even offering free frames. But people must take advantage of the changes by shopping around to obtain the widest choice at the best prices. It may well be that competition arising from the sale of ready-made reading glasses will cause prices to reduce still further. It is of course early days yet and I am sure that noble Lords would agree that it would be unwise for me at this stage to make any firm predictions on the future direction the market may or may not take.
This leads me on to sight tests. We considered it right that those who can afford to pay for sight tests should do so, and on 1st April this year regulations were introduced restricting the NHS sight test to certain groups. Some 40 per cent. of people still get free tests under the NHS.
Again, however, it is early days and it would be unwise at this stage to make any firm judgments, but we do not accept that people will be deterred from having sight tests as a result of the introduction of charges. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned a fall of 30 per cent. since 1st April. As I said, it is only two-and-a-half months and I believe that there was a large influx before 1st April. Speaking from my own experience, I went to an optician in March. I did not have a sight test but he advised me to rush in and have one before 1st April. That might explain some of the fall.
Similarly, I should not like to predict with any accuracy the effect that market forces are likely to have on sight test charges. I should hope that competition will mean that charges will be lower in 12 months' time. Certainly it would be unwise to make any assessments at a time when the market has undergone such major changes and needs time to settle. However, I understand from early indications that sight test charges vary enormously from about

1501
£7 to £15, with two of the larger companies settling on a fee on or marginally above the current NHS sight test fee of £10·40. In passing, I should mention to the House that in Holland, where sight test charges were also introduced, one of the large multiple optical companies broke ranks and offered free sight tests and now most of the market has followed suit. It may be that given time we may well see something similar occurring in this country.
At present we have no further plans to introduce legislation that will affect the optical services. Noble Lords are no doubt aware that following consultation the Government recently decided that it was not appropriate to lay regulations for a two-tier sight test—that is, allowing consumers in the private market the right to opt for a refraction-only sight test, one which would determine only their optical prescription and not provide any examination of the eye.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, seemed to think that we had fallen on our face; and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, talked of my right honourable friend's lack of wisdom. However, I stress that we are a listening Government. The noble Lord laughs, but that is the case. We do not listen, only as the noble Lord suggested, to our honourable friends in another place.
We concluded that it was right that all sight tests should include an eye examination and any other test appropriate for the needs of the individual patient. We recognise that we must preserve the role of optometrists and ophthalmic medical practitioners in primary health care. The eye examination which can detect symptomless eye conditions, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, suggested, such as glaucoma as well as other medical conditions is a vital part of that role.
However, in reaching that decision it was also announced in another place that the General Optical Council, which is responsible for the professional conduct and education of opticians, has offered to undertake a programme of investigation into the optical services. Terms of reference have yet to be agreed but I expect the review to be wide-ranging and it will be carried out over the next 12 months. We shall obviously want to look closely at current regulations in the light of the council's findings.
We have heard much about the use of autorefractors this afternoon. There are two schools of thought—that of the noble Lords, Lord Northfield and Lord Rugby, and that of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I took note of what the noble Lord said about Sweden, and I shall pass on his suggestion that we examine the experiment there. I shall be most interested, when he brings the machine here, to examine it.
My understanding is that while these instruments provide a good baseline measurement it is questionable whether they constitute an accurate refraction even when combined with auto optitesters. We have concluded, as I said earlier, that all sight tests should include an examination. Therefore we do not plan to change legislation to allow the use of automatic instruments to conduct
1502
"quickie" sight tests by unqualified people or for such instruments to be used as a screening device which will give people an indication of whether or not they need spectacles.
As I have already said, we shall of course honour our commitments to monitor the new arrangements arising from the changes in legislation. However, I must say that I expect it will be some time before the market settles down. Many people will have brought their sight tests forward as I suggested earlier, in order to avoid the charges from 1st April and therefore may well not have another sight test for at least two or three years. However, I think that we can look forward over the next five years or so to seeing competition develop in the optical field and to the consumer. I have no doubt that the profession will make full use of new technology and embrace it enthusiastically as part of the everyday equipment it needs to give a full and valuable service to the patient.
At this point it may be appropriate if I deal with one or two points raised by noble; Lords in the debate. I apologise in advance if I do not cover everything. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, complained that we had not publicised the availability of reading glasses as widely as he would have liked. I take the same line as my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I do not accept that it is the Government's responsibility to publicise the availability of reading glasses in any massive advertising campaign. However, in leaflet G11 which is published by the Department of Health, reference is made to the availability of those glasses and people are advised that they can use National Health Service spectacle vouchers to purchase them.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, also complained that the cost of reading glasses was too high. Reading glasses are on sale in many outlets, as the noble Lord pointed out. My understanding is that it is possible to purchase reading glasses from as little as £2·99. That proves that competition is developing, and we hope that it will continue to do so. The noble Lord complained about reading glasses not being on display. They are on display in a number of outlets including, according to my information, some department stores. Obviously, we cannot force companies to display them.
I welcome the remarks of my noble friend Lord Mottistone about the voucher scheme, which is of great use on low incomes. I should say in passing that our evidence is that some 36 per cent. of people who choose to buy spectacles on the voucher scheme manage to buy spectacles within the voucher value. However, on the subject of overpricing—to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and other noble Lords referred—if noble Lords wish to write to me on those points I shall look into the matter further.
The noble Lord, Lord Rugby, seemed to be of the view that opticians are not competent to carry out sight tests. I do not accept that line of argument. The training that opticians receive gives them the competence to be able to refer patients to their doctors where the sight test reveals an ocular or medical condition that requires diagnosis or treatment. We recognise that it is important for

1503
opticians to continue to develop their skills after they qualify. This year the Government have allocated £100,000 for that purpose. The British College of Optometrists has produced two videos which will be issued to all optometrists.
So far as concerns further changes in spectacle price and sight test arrangements charges, we propose to allow market forces to take effect and for the market to find its own level. We look forward to seeing both cheaper sight tests and cheaper spectacles without in any way seeing a reduction in professional standards and service available to the consumer. As I have aleady said, we do not believe that charges will have any deterrent effect on the number of people attending their optician and having their sight tested. I believe that we, as a country, can still claim to have one of the best optical professions in the world and one that offers high and caring professional standards to all its patients.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past eight o'clock.

  IMMIGRATION RULES: CHANGES
  IMMIGRATION RULES: CHANGES
  IMMIGRATION CASES: DNA TESTING
  IMMIGRATION CASES: DNA TESTING
  CHANNEL 3 LICENCES
  CHANNEL 3 LICENCES
  SCHOOL GOVERNORS: TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES
  SCHOOL GOVERNORS: TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES
  COALITE GROUP PLC: TAKEOVER PROPOSAL
  COALITE GROUP PLC: TAKEOVER PROPOSAL
  OCCUPATIONAL ZOONOSES: REVIEW
  OCCUPATIONAL ZOONOSES: REVIEW
  ILFORD PARK POLISH HOME
  ILFORD PARK POLISH HOME
  AIDS SUFFERERS: MORTGAGE INTEREST PAYMENTS
  AIDS SUFFERERS: MORTGAGE INTEREST PAYMENTS
  NHS: LOCAL PROVISION OF CORE SERVICES
  NHS: LOCAL PROVISION OF CORE SERVICES
  NHS: EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROPOSALS
  NHS: EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROPOSALS