Sitting of 7 November 1989

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

    PENZANCE ALBERT PIER EXTENSION BILL
    Motion made,
    That so much of the Lords Message (2nd November) as relates to the Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill be now considered.
    That the Promoters of the Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall he presented to the House;
    That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
    That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    That these Orders he Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered on Thursday 9 November at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    West Midlands (Resources)
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has assessed the extent to which the formula for funding of the regional health authorities adequately reflects the needs of the West Midiands regional health authority.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the allocation of National Health Service resources for the west midlands.
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the future funding of the West Midlands regional health authority.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The new regional allocation formula reflects the relative need for health services of west midlands residents by taking account of the size, age structure, and health of the region's population. I have received several letters about allocations to west midlands region, including a number from hon. Members and one from the chairman of the regional health authority.
    Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend's reply. Is he aware that there is considerable concern in the west midlands that the resource allocation does not reflect regional needs? Is he aware further that Herefordshire is one of the fastest growing areas in the region in terms both of population size and of age? Because of that, even now, the health authority is finding it difficult to sustain the level of service that the Government expect from it. Can we look forward to future resourcing which will properly and accurately reflect demographic trends and the full implications of patients from Wales going to Herefordshire for treatment?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is concern in the region at the moment. That concern stems largely from a debate that has arisen on the technical planning guidelines that we have given this year. I ask everybody in the west midlands to wait until allocations of funds are made to the west midlands, which will be after the Autumn Statement has been announced. I remind everyone in the west midlands that under this Government the allocation to the west midlands has increased dramatically. It is now up by 37 per cent. in real terms since we took power. That compares with a 30 per cent. increase to health authorities across the country.
    Hereford has particular problems because of the age structure of its population and the other factors that my hon. Friend has described. The region will be expected to take them into account when making allocations to the district, just as we shall take all west midlands population; features into account when we make eventual allocations, to the region.
    Mrs. Hicks: I acknowledge the welcome overall increases for the National Health Service in the forthcoming year, but will my right hon. and learned

    817
    Friend take on board the obvious anxiety of three west midlands hon. Members who are asking three of the first five questions today and who are naturally genuinely concerned about any talk of reductions? Obviously, from what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying, we do not have cause for concern. May I therefore take that message back to Wolverhampton health authority, which has done a splendid job in managing its resources, and may I tell it that its efforts will be rewarded and not penalised?
    Mr. Clarke: It seems to me—I only guess—that three Conservative Members from the west midlands have acted promptly after a letter was sent to all west midlands Members by the chairman of the regional health authority. I commend to my hon. Friend a reply that I sent to the chairman of the health authority, pointing out that no cuts of any kind are proposed and also pointing out our excellent record in increasing resources to the west midlands. I am sure that when the regional chairman gets the eventual allocations he will seek to reflect my hon. Friend's concern by allocating further growth money to the Wolverhampton health authority.
    Mr. Gill: I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend's answers. When he considers the allocation of funds, will he use his best offices to ensure that demographic and geographic factors in Shropshire, as opposed to other parts of the west midlands, are truly reflected? Will my right hon. and learned Friend care to consider for one moment that the allocation of funds generally has been more generous to health authorities in Wales, which adjoins my constituency?
    Mr. Clarke: I certainly give that undertaking to my hon. Friend. Shropshire has certainly done well in recent years. It has a new district general hospital, which now gives the county two extremely good district general hospitals and, in addition, one of the best orthopaedic units in the country, at Oswestry. The district has done very well in the allocation of funds in recent years. The region was able to give an additional £7 million, or a 9·1 per cent, increase, to Shropshire in this year alone. That is a rise of 206 per cent, in cash terms, or 32 per cent, in real terms, since the Government took office. That does not include £0·75 million that the district received in waiting list initiative money. I am sure that when the allocations of cash are made this year when the results of the autumn spending round are announced, the region will make a proper allocation to Shropshire to reflect all the demographic features of that county.
    Mr. Fisher: Is the Secretary of State aware of the recent university of Leeds survey on health in north Staffordshire, which shows that 50 per cent, of men in Stoke-on-Trent die before they reach pensionable age and that in one part of my constituency the life expectancy for men is less than 62 years? How, therefore, can he justify re-weighting the mortality rates, which has led to the shift in resources of £56 million over the next three years from the west midlands to the rich south-east?
    Mr. Clarke: I am aware of the study, which underlined the great need to improve the health status of the population of the Potteries. I suspect that historically the health status of people living in that industrial area has not been so good as that of the rest of the country. As I said in my first supplementary answer, since we came to power we have given a much bigger increase in funds to the west
    818
    midlands than to the rest of the country—and certainly greater than we have given to the south-east. Our new arrangements for distributing money are simpler than those that we had before. They reflect the comparative needs of the regions and still contemplate a comparative shift of resources away from London to other parts of the country.
    However, whatever formula one comes up with, it is possible to make a case in favour of each and every one of the 190 districts in the country. The formula we are using is the fairest, taking account of all the competing health needs of the different districts.
    Mr. Corbett: Will the Secretary of State make it clear whether next year under his new formula he expects the west midlands to get more or less money than this year? Is he aware that the North Birmingham health authority, with the Good Hope hospital in Sutton Coldfield, is currently £500,000 overspent and faces having to close wards and beds and to cut services? What is the Secretary of State going to do about that?
    Mr. Clarke: I expect the West Midlands regional health authority to get more money next year, as it has every year during the lifetime of this Government. The exact amount will become clear when we make the allocations to the regions after the Chancellor has announced the results of the Autumn Statement, which will be shortly. The West Midlands regional health authority has never had so much money at its disposal for the National Health Service as it has at the moment. It is greatly increasing its patient care and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's district health authority is treating more patients this year than it ever has in the history of the National Health Service. It is a weakness of the management of the Health Service that even when more money is poured into it it has mid-year crises because the management cannot match the expansion of services with the money—[Interruption.] The reason for reforming the service is to improve control over that money so that we can have steady and sustained growth instead of the checks to growth that the hon. Gentleman has just described.
    Mr. George: If the Secretary of State is still talking to Sir James Ackers—I am not sure that he will be after the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intemperate letter of 24 October—will he guarantee to hon. Members representing Walsall that the final tranche of the £2·4 million to allow the new district general hospital to open on time will actually be made?
    Mr. Clarke: Sir James Ackers is one of my oldest personal friends—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He is also one of the very best chairmen of regional health authorities in this country. It is an experience of life that when extremely good and competent people are running things there are sometimes fairly robust exchanges between them. My exchange corrected his letter, but he and I remain on excellent terms. When I next meet him I will take up with him the question that the hon. Gentleman has asked because I realise how important it is that we open this new and important facility at the earliest possible moment.
    Dame Jill Knight: Could my right hon. and learned Friend shortly inform his great friend the chairman of the west midlands authority that when dealing with the new basket of money he should bear in mind that to both the public and to Conservative Members it is totally

    819
    unacceptable that women who have reason to suppose that they may have breast cancer should have to wait many months to be sure about it because of the shortage of money, or that a man who has kidney stones, when there is a lithotripter available, cannot have his condition alleviated because of lack of money? That point worries many of us.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has made strong representations recently to Sir James and to myself about proposed changes at the Birmingham women's hospital and she was able to ensure that no reduction of service was planned there. I am sure that Sir James is aware of the shortcomings of the service to which she has referred, and as we put more money into the West Midlands regional health authority, I trust that he and the region will ensure that the district health authorities are put in a position to tackle them.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Perhaps I can help the Secretary of State in his difficulties with his Back Benchers. Why does he not tell them that their dissatisfaction with funding is evenly spread across the country? Did he see last week's survey by NAHA, the National Association of Health Authorities, which concluded that all health authorities face financial pressure and that nine out of 10 are having to make cash savings in this financial year? Does he recall describing last year's Autumn Statement, which left those health authorities in the red, as a "quite spectacular boost" in health spending? Is he really asking the House to believe that that spectacular boost was all frittered away by bad management? Or is the truth the fact that no health authority got the cash it needed to meet the real rate of inflation?
    Mr. Clarke: That is quite absurd. The Health Service as a whole is spending more than £2 billion over and above what it was spending a year ago. That is an increase—taking a pessimistic view of inflation—of about 4 per cent. in real terms over and above inflation. The hon. Gentleman should do his homework and stop making wild assertions about the increase being below the level of inflation. The NAHA report is therefore against the background of the health authorities having more money to spend than they have ever had before, a quite spectacular rate of growth in their resources this year and every health authority throughout the country treating more patients this year than it treated last year and expanding its services. Only the hon. Gentleman thinks that there are no shortcomings in management revealed by the fact that they still get themselves into short-term crises towards the end of the year when they have had such a huge influx of funds. It is essential that we tackle those management weaknesses, because then we can get even more out of the enormous increases in funding that the Government are putting into the service.

    "Working for Patients"
    Mr. David Porter: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the implications of the proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients" for education and training.
    The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The Government are committed to maintaining the quantity and quality of education and training by and for the National Health Service. Our proposals in respect of
    820
    medical and dental education were set out in "Self-Governing Hospitals: An Initial Guide" in June. Our proposals for the education and training of key non-medical staff groups are set out in working paper 10 published last month.
    Mr. Porter: Can my hon. Friend confirm that under these proposals NHS hospital trusts will play a full and proper part in education in the Health Service and that regional health authorities which, after all, have a natural and proper role, will also play a part in continuing education in the NHS?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I can strongly confirm the points made by my hon. Friend. The NHS trusts not only will play their full part in promoting education, but they will want to do so; they will want to be seen as centres of excellence committed to the NHS, of which they are a full part. The role of the regions has been further clarified in the recent working paper to which I referred, and not only in securing but in funding education and training, not only in assisting in medical education but in the training of the important non-medical groups which play an important part in the Health Service.
    Mr. Kennedy: Does the Minister agree that, as well as the health professionals who are directly affected, the patients have a legitimate interest in what will happen to the education and training of those professionals if hospitals choose to opt out? That being the case, what proposals does the Minister have for the involvement, consultation and democratic rights of patients to have a say about a change in status of an NHS hospital?
    Mrs. Bottomley: There is no question of any hospitals opting out of the NHS. The NHS trusts will be full members of the service. The whole purpose of the Government's proposals is to put patients first, and patients will benefit from having highly qualified, well-skilled staff looking after them in the NHS.
    Mr. Paice: I welcome my hon. Friend to her first Question Time as Minister for Health. Is she aware that the proposals and new regulations for the training of hospital doctors have put in jeopardy the future of Newmarket general hospital, which services a large part of my constituency? Will she give an undertaking that if the proposals to downgrade that hospital, because of the new regulations, come to her or to her right hon. and learned Friend, they will be carefully examined bearing in mind that such downgrading would be to the serious detriment of all the patients in my constituency?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The Government obviously take the training of doctors extremely seriously as they are fundamental to the future of our Health Service. There are now 14,000 more doctors than there were in 1979 and they are all well qualified and well skilled to meet health needs. I should be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the hospital in his constituency in more detail and to review that matter carefully.

    Perfusionists
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the number of perfusionists employed by the National Health Service to reach its target.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): There is no national target for the number of perfusionists, who are staff who work the heart and lung machinery in cardiac surgery, to be employed in the National Health Service. It is for health authorities to arrange appropriate staffing levels in the light of local needs.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that that is an unsatisfactory reply? He must know that it has been estimated that the NHS needs 200 perfusionists, but at present has only 90. Will he also accept from me that perfusionists not only operate the heart and lung machines in cardiac surgery but are vital in the treatment of lymph cancer? Until the Government recognise the new technique of limb perfusion for the treatment of lymph cancer and recompense those few excellent hospitals that seek to treat lymph cancer by limb perfusion for the high cost of that treatment, we will never reach a satisfactory solution to the present tug of war between the cardiac surgery departments and lymph cancer departments of every hospital that can offer limb perfusion? People are virtually begging for that treatment, which is vital.
    Mr. Freeman: We are well on target to meet the 1990 aim of some 15,000 bypass graft operations for cardiac patients. With effect from 1 September we have introduced into the NHS a new flexible pay-grading structure for technicians. They have greatly welcomed that structure and it will help us to ensure that the 1990 target is met.
    Mr. Sims: Does my hon. Friend agree that perfusionists play a key role in operations ranging from heart bypasses right through to complete organ transplants? Is he aware that 22 perfusionists left the NHS within the past 12 months and that perfusionists are not specified in the grading letter to which my hon. Friend referred? They feel unrecognised and inadequately rewarded. Will he consider their case seriously to see whether he can do something about their numbers because that is vital?
    Mr. Freeman: I agree with my hon. Friend that perfusionists perform a vital task in cardiac surgery and elsewhere in our hospitals. I draw to his attention the fact that they have welcomed the new flexible pay-grading structure. I shall, however, certainly reflect on what my hon. Friend has said and I shall have a close look at the letter that we issued to the Health Service.
    Mr. Ron Brown: I do not believe that any right hon. or hon. Member would disagree that the argument about perfusionists is important, but surely it is more important at this time that we resolve the ambulance drivers' dispute, which has been imposed on the people—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a good try, but I am afraid it is miles wide of the question.

    Capital Expenditure Plans
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make it his policy to remind chairmen of regional health authorities of previous ministerial assurances concerning capital expenditure plans.
    Mr. Freeman: It is the responsibility of regional health authorities in conjunction with district health authorities to draw up plans for capital expenditure on hospital and
    822
    community health services. Ministerial assurances that capital projects will go ahead are given in conjunction with regional health authorities and will be respected.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend remind the chairman of the North Western regional health authority that Ministers have made pledges on at least four occasions since 1983 that Bolton new hospital would start this year? We are still waiting despite the fact that more than 100 schemes have been commissioned in the north-west since 1979. Will my hon. Friend also ensure that no new formulas are used that would adversely affect the north-west because of a change in the way in which the standard mortality ratio is used?
    Mr. Freeman: Perhaps I can re-emphasise to my hon. Friend and to my other colleagues from the north-west and other parts of the country where capital projects have been discussed—and I use my words advisedly—that where ministerial assurances have been given that capital projects will go ahead, those promises will be honoured.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister think that the present capital programme will overcome the difficulties facing patients in the west midlands who go to an optician for an eye test, discover that their sight is defective, and then require a referral to an eye hospital? Those patients have to visit their doctors, who then contact the Birmingham and Midland eye hospital, which is giving appointments 30 months hence. Is that not part and parcel of the problems that Sir James Ackers raised with the Secretary of State and was publicly humiliated for his endeavours?
    Mr. Freeman: We need no lessons from the Labour party about capital expenditure plans. This Administration has increased capital expenditure to a total of £1·2 billion this year.

    Self-governing Hospitals
    Mr. Gale: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the implications for patient care of the proposals to allow hospitals to become self-governing National Health Service trusts.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Self-governing NHS hospital trusts will remain firmly within the NHS, but they will have far more freedom to take their own decisions on the matters that affect them most without detailed supervision from my Department and the health authorities. This will give a better quality service and encourage other hospitals to raise the quality of their services.
    Mr. Gale: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us what further steps his Department intends to take to rebut the black propaganda being peddled by the Opposition and ram home to the public the fact that the Health Service reforms, while they may not be welcomed by every leader of every Health Service union, are designed to improve patient care, which is what the Health Service is there for?
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I will take every opportunity to do that. In fact, I am today launching a small newspaper advertising campaign to bring home to the public the improvements in the family doctor service that will result from the new general practitioner contract that the House has approved.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Secretary of State aware of the case of the Royal Scottish National hospital, which is home to about 800 mentally handicapped patients, where in a recent ballot of employees more than 95 per cent. rejected the management's proposal for opting out? How can the Government justify going ahead with such damaging proposals when they have been so resoundingly rejected by the overwhelming majority of staff involved in the front line of patient care? The only people who seem to support opting out are a few pen-pushing bureaucrats with no first-hand experience of patient care.
    Mr. Clarke: Scotland has a fully devolved system of Government and that is a responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), is present and if it were in order I am sure that he would reply in connection with the hospital to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    I am familiar with other ballots that were organised in several English hospitals for which I am responsible. On the whole, at this stage, they are something of a waste of time. What usually happens is that the local council, the Labour party or the trade unions begin by giving a preposterous description of the proposals to the staff and then take a ballot in which the staff say they do not like that rather unpleasant description of the proposals. When we have proper applications for self governing status as hospital trusts, which I shall receive and welcome after the House has given assent to the necessary legislation next summer, there will be full public consultation about what is proposed for the hospital and the improvements in the services that the hospital can offer to the patients as a result of self government. At the moment, the political ballots are distracting attention from the real work of getting ahead with the preparations.
    Mr. Pawsey: May I offer my right hon. and learned Friend my thanks for two things? [HON. MEMBERS: "Too many."] There would be more—
    Mr. Speaker: Make it just one.
    Mr. Pawsey: First, I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for approving additional consultants for the Rugby health authority and for giving the green light for self-governing status for St. Cross hospital. Does he accept that both those things are warmly welcomed and will do much to improve the quality of health care in the Rugby area?
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that when people encounter what is happening to the Health Service nowadays they feel similar reactions to the new units opening across the country and to the expansion of patient services that is taking place. I contrast my hon. Friend's question with questions asked by Opposition Members who represent districts that have had huge increases of resources for their hospitals and huge increases in the number of patients treated yet who continue to raise obscure points which they claim show that the service is going into reverse.
    Ms. Harman: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman believes that opting out is in the patients' interest and that patients should have a choice, why, as Secretary of State, has he not arranged that in each of the 79 areas patients
    824
    should have a say through a ballot? Has he made arrangements for them to have a say in any of the 79 areas that are applying to opt out?
    Mr. Clarke: I have repeatedly explained that we have no applications and we shall have no applications until the summer of next year. When the applications come in they will be worked up with details of what is proposed and the plans for the development of service that the sponsors propose. I have always said—indeed, the White Paper says—that at that stage there will be full public consultation. At the moment all that is being arranged is absurd political propaganda by the Labour party followed by local ballots asking selective and tendentious questions. There will be more serious public consultation when the applications come in.

    NHS Reform
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any additional funds are being made available for the implementation of the Health Service reforms.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase expenditure on accountants and statisticians in the National Health Service in preparation for his plans in the White Paper.
    Mr. Freeman: We have made available the sum of £82 million for implementation work this year. This includes £12 million to strengthen the finance function in health authorities and hospitals. This funding will be over and above continued improvements in patient care.
    Mr. French: I welcome that news, but will my hon. Friend undertake continuously to monitor the funding needed for implementing these reforms so that unavoidable and unforeseen extra expenditure can be taken into account without precipitating a crisis that will place the entire reform programme in jeopardy?
    Mr. Freeman: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Spending for this year, at £82 million, although a significant sum, still amounts to only 0–4 per cent. of the total budget for the NHS in England, a budget which is growing this year by about 10 per cent.
    Mr. Bennett: Can the Minister explain how it is possible for the Government to find extra funding to put forward their doctrinaire plans yet not possible for them to find extra funding to settle the ambulance dispute, to reduce the hours of junior hospital doctors or to ensure that we have enough nurses? Have not the Government got their priorities wrong; do we not need the money to be spent on patients rather than on statisticians trying to prove that the Government are doing better than they are?
    Mr. Freeman: No, Sir. The additional funds required to improve the management of the Health Service are designed to improve the control of expenditure of finite resources. Good financial management is necessary for better patient care.
    Mr. Couchman: Can my hon. Friend reassure the House, as my right hon. and learned Friend reassured the BMA, that no patient will suffer for lack of medication, whatever the need or cost, as a result of the impact of his proposed indicative budgets?
    Mr. Freeman: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There are no proposals to cash-limit drug prescriptions by general practitioners.
    Mr. Morley: Is not the Minister's proccupation with accountants more to do with the fact that the Government propose to run hospitals more like grocery stores than as a service to the community? Would it not be better if he addressed himself to the fact that hospitals are run on team work and that many groups of workers—laboratory technicians, physiotherapists and X-ray technicians—feel that they do not have a career structure or salary that reflects their commitment to the communities in which they work?
    Mr. Freeman: The NHS in the United Kingdom consumes £26,000 million. Surely the hon. Gentleman will therefore accept that we need the best possible methods of controlling that vast expenditure.
    Mr. Latham: Will it be clearly understood by the accountants and statisticians that through extra efficiency they will be expected to recover more than the £12 million that it will cost to recruit them?
    Mr. Freeman: Absolutely.

    NHS Reform
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on his review of the National Health Service.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Excellent progress is being made on the implementation of the proposals set out in the White Paper "Working for Patients". I am confident that our proposals will lead to an even better service for patients.
    Mr. Macdonald: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity of the Health Service review to review also the financial position of Project 2000 nurses who have to work under the fear that bursaries will be transferred to loans? Will he say something to allay the fears of those nurses?
    Mr. Clarke: We have made wholly reasonable provision for the bursaries of Project 2000 nurses. I think that my proposals have been welcomed by the Royal College of Nursing. We have no intention of moving student nurses to the loans proposal and intend to continue to provide for them by bursaries. We are almost exclusively the sole employer of trained nurses and it makes no sense to introduce the loan scheme to student nurses in the National Health Service.
    Mr. Yeo: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in condemning the British Medical Association and those of its members who are maliciously suggesting that they may run out of money when they have to prescribe drugs for their patients? The main objective of that campaign appears to be to frighten patients into opposing the Government's reforms.
    Mr. Clarke: I very much hope that all GPs have now stopped doing that because I know that until recently some were saying that rather vigorously to their patients. The BMA has now accepted that there was never any question of refusing necessary treatment or drugs for patients. Obviously, it is quite wrong for individual patients to be
    826
    frightened by people who still persist in that misunderstanding. No doubt in some cases it was merely misunderstanding.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Contrary to the Secretary of State's earlier statement, may I assure him that, unfortunately, we in Scotland do not have a devolved system of government? Is he aware that the Scottish Office, which has responsibility for the provision and administration of the Health Service in Scotland, has advised that there will be no separate legislation on the reforms? Who will take the decisions about the Health Service in Scotland? Will it be the Secretary of State for Health or the Scottish Office?
    Mr. Clarke: If I might give the perspective of an English Minister, I can assure the hon. Lady that Scotland has a fully devolved Health Service. I have absolutely no responsibilities for Scotland and I take no decisions about the Scottish Health Service at any time. Those decisions are in the hands of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. He and I both need changes in the legislative framework before we can implement the reforms that have been put forward in the White Paper. The way in which the reforms are carried out in Scotland will be wholly the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: In the review of the National Health Service, from which my constituents will benefit substantially when money follows the patient, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that in my constituency we have many elderly people and two very old mental deficiency hospitals for which more funds are required? Will he please see that enough money is pushed into the north-west so that we can have a generous allocation for those services?
    Mr. Clarke: In my opinion all parts of the National Health Service will benefit from the new system because we will be matching resources more closely to the delivery of expanding services in the manner that my hon. Friend rightly described as money following the patient. Lancaster will benefit particularly because at the moment it draws in many patients from outside its district boundaries for which no adequate financial provision is made under our present arrangements. It will be important to distribute money to the district health authorities which will have to make decisions about where to put the money in order to get the service that they require in a way that reflects the make-up of the population, demographic trends and so on of each district. They should certainly bear in mind the age structure in Lancaster to which my hon. Friend refers.

    Community Care
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to ensure that standards of assessment for community care services are of a national minimum quality.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Local authorities will be responsible for carrying out assessment, in collaboration with medical, nursing and other interests. Further information on the procedures will be contained in our White Paper on community care, to be published shortly.
    Mr. Griffiths: The Minister told the House on 17 October that the Government were committed to advocacy for the disabled, so why have they delayed shamefully the implementation of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1987? The Minister referred to local authorities, so why have the Government postponed meeting local authorities to discuss these matters, which are so critical to disabled people?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The proposals in the White Paper will be a milestone in the provision of care for those who need to be cared for in the community. They will offer the opportunity of assessment and appropriate care rather than the perverse incentives that have taken place in the past. The provisions of the Disabled Persons Act will be reviewed in the light of the proposals once they have been announced.
    Mr. Soames: Is my hon. Friend aware that now that so many beds are provided in the private sector for the care of the elderly, the generally held view is that there is not sufficient liaison between the private and public sectors for the care of the elderly? Is my hon. Friend satisfied, within the context of the report, that everything possible is being done to obtain that important information?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend addresses a key point. What matters to the elderly is that provision is available and there is a choice of provision. Our proposals for care in the community will allow for an equal playing field, which will in turn allow choice, variety and proper inspection. No more will either the public or the private sectors be disadvantaged.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister aware that Sense, the organisation of and for blind-deaf persons has issued a clear statement in which it says that the tragic case of Beverley Lewis might not have taken place had the appropriate sections of the Disabled Persons Act been implemented? Will the Government accept that they have on the statute book the opportunity to prevent such dreadful cases from taking place, and will they make sure that this Act is implemented with all possible speed? Will the Minister also resume negotiations with the local authorities?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will know as well as I do of the danger of springing to too many conclusions on one tragic and appalling case. We are looking carefully at this case and will learn lessons as appropiate. I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the provision, recently announced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, of further services and attention to the needs of the mentally ill.

    Prescriptions
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of National Health Service prescriptions are free of charge; and what is the comparable figure for 1979.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: In 1988, 77·5 per cent. of prescriptions dispensed by pharmacies were dispensed free of charge. This compares with 60·9 per cent. in 1979.
    Mr. Knapman: Is it not basic common sense that the one person in four who can readily afford to make such contributions should do so, thereby further expanding NHS services?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Yes. The prescription charge is relatively modest and it is appropriate that the one in four who can reasonably pay should do so. The Government's responsibility is to put patients first—to ensure that resources are used effectively and efficiently—and the fact that there has been such a significant increase in the number of prescriptions given free of charge is a demonstration of the Government's commitment to patients.
    Mr. Robin Cook: By what percentage have eye tests dropped since they stopped being free of charge? Will the Minister confirm that, on present trends, we are on course for 3 million fewer eye tests this year?
    Last year, the Secretary of State told the House that he did not believe the optometrists when they warned that charges would deter people from having eye tests. Given the stark evidence of the dramatic drop in the number of eye tests, do Ministers believe that now?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I will take no sermons from the hon. Gentleman about the provision of care. We intend to review the take-up of eye tests but it was, after all, the hon. Gentleman's party, when in office, which cut capital spending, nurses'. pay and the NHS budget. This Government have increased nurses' pay, and allowed record spending on the Health Service, which has led to an extra 25,000 patients a week being treated. We have a record to be proud of.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that 92 per cent. of the cost of drugs is paid by the taxpayer? Does that and the wide variation in drugs prescribed by doctors not underline the case for indicative drug budgets?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has made his point well and I endorse it.

    Finance
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to reassess the way in which the financial needs of the National Health Service are determined each year.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: No. The Government will continue to assess the financial needs of the NHS within the context of the annual public expenditure round.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister admit that talking about additional expenditure on the Health Service beyond the retail prices index is meaningless when costs within the Health Service rise ahead of the RPI, and the number of old people who need treatment means there is additional need for expenditure? Will the Minister take that into account during the next public expenditure review?
    Mrs. Bottomley: It is not meaningless for the 70,000 extra nurses who have been employed by this Government. It is not meaningless for the 14,000 extra doctors who have been taken on. It is not meaningless for the nurses who

    829
    have received a 45 per cent. increase in pay and it is not meaningless for the £4 billion hospital building programme.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, then I shall depart for the United States of America to address the United Nations General Assembly.
    Mr. Cohen: Has the Prime Minister seen the statement by the chairman of the Police Federation, Alan Eastwood, in which he said that the police do not have the necessary paramedical expertise to man ambulances? The same is true of the Army. Why are the Government putting lives at risk by treating ambulance men and women as the latest enemy within? Have the Government put them on low pay because they think that saving lives is cheap?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is correct in his underlying assumption that it would be far better if the ambulance men were to carry out their normal duties, bearing in mind the fact that most other people in the Health Service settled for 6·5 per cent., and that the London ambulance men have been offered well over 9 per cent., backdated to April. That is why it would be better if the ambulance men were all at their posts dealing with emergency services and with the nine out of 10 patients who are non-emergency but need to be conveyed to hospital.
    Mr. Onslow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that elections in Britain are fought on issues of principle and policies, which must rule out an Opposition that have neither?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I agree that the Opposition drop principles and policies when it is expedient, but this Government stick to both. It is that sticking to principles and policies, and passing out as many powers and responsibilities as possible—and enterprise—to people, that have enabled us to create more wealth than ever before, to spread it more widely than ever before and to have a higher standard of social services than ever before.
    Mr. Kinnock: When the Prime Minister was asked why the Chancellor resigned, why did she not tell the truth?
    The Prime Minister: If my right hon. Friend had wanted to resign on a point of policy, I could have understood that. Policy is a matter for Ministers. I find it totally incomprehensible that someone who has held the office of Chancellor with high standing for six years should want to resign over personality—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: Over personality, with such suddenness and haste.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister appears to be the only person left in the country who does not understand why the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, resigned. Is it not the truth that the right hon. Gentleman said to the Prime Minister, "Either the adviser goes by the end of the year or I go now"? Why cannot she admit that truth?
    The Prime Minister: Policy is a matter for Ministers, advice is not. I tried to persuade my right hon. Friend not to go but it was quite clear that he was determined to go, and go that day.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that the 1982 principles agreed by the United Nations Security Council, which stand part of resolution 435, are honoured and upheld in Namibia following the elections in that country which began today?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend takes a special interest in these matters and that she is aware that resolution 435 lays down that there should be elections to a constitutional convention. She will be aware also that if the winning party gains only a simple majority, the matter remains for the United Nations representative. It it gains 66 per cent., the winning party can draft the constitutional convention. We do not know what will happen. I have absolute faith in Mr. Ahtisaarï, the United Nations special representative, who will decide on all the evidence whether the elections have been free and fair. That is a matter for him, and only him, to decide. We put our whole trust and confidence in him in making the correct decision.
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thompson: Is the Prime Minister aware of the widespread anger and consternation in mining areas that has been expressed by miners and private mine owners about the importation of foreign, subsidised, slave-labour coal? Is she aware also that British mines have increased their productivity by 90 per cent. and profit by 30 per cent? Is not this a case for buying British?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the enormous sums of investment that have been put into the mining industry during the lifetime of the Government—about £2 million for every working day over the past 10 years. That should enable the mining industry to be highly competitive and, therefore, to compete with other coal which could otherwise come in, which would be subject to transport costs. I hope that the industry will be competitive, but we cannot long continue in Britain having people who, when they go shopping themselves, expect to have the benefit of competition and when they produce themselves to expect to have the benefit of protection.
    Mr. Lord: Does my right hon. Friend agree that haemophiliacs who have been accidentally infected with the AIDS virus have a unique case both for the sympathy of the nation and the full support of the House? Will she today instruct those who have the managing of these

    831
    affairs to have done with their legal wrangling and allow these people the compensation and the peace of mind that they surely deserve?
    The Prime Minister: I have a good deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. He will know that a considerable sum has been given to a trust that has been set up for the benefit of these people. It is very similar to trusts which have been set up in other countries. My hon. Friend will be aware, as his supplementary question suggested, that there is a legal case pending. I think that we must wait for the result of that. In the meantime, I make the point that the trust provides about the same amount as has been available to these people, who have suffered so much, in other countries.
    Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Kennedy: Does the Prime Minister feel that her diminishing credibility in the office of Prime Minister would be somewhat salvaged were she to follow yesterday's advice which was offered her by her dear friend Sir Edward du Cann, who suggested that a leadership challenge would clear the air? In the event of such a development, does the right hon. Lady think that her position would be unassailable?
    The Prime Minister: The comment from behind me was that a party that cannot decide its own name is hardly in a position to criticise anyone.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the London borough of Barnet on the fact, admitted in The Sunday Times, that the best exam results were obtained in that borough? Does she agree that it is no coincidence that the best school exam results come from Conservative boroughs and the worst from Labour boroughs?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I gladly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Barnet. We both represent constituencies in the borough of Barnet. Its educational results are quite the best and it has some good Members of Parliament too.
    Mr. Clelland: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clelland: Does the Prime Minister recall telling the nation on television just a week ago, that she did not know why the Chancellor had resigned? Can she explain why someone whom she described as, "Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant", was unable to explain clearly to her that he would have stayed if Alan Walters had gone?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must have prepared his question carefully before he heard my previous reply. I have nothing further to add.
    Mr. David Porter: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Porter: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what fresh steps she can take to protect and promote Britain's interests with a fair and even-handed allocation and enforcement of quotas, restrictions, rules and regulations within the EC?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we scrutinise draft directives carefully. Frequently, they are perhaps not best suited to the conditions in this country. Directives are also scrutinised by the House. I entirely agree with him that we must watch them extremely carefully, and, bearing in mind that he comes from a fishing area, that we must be careful that the fishing quotas are not undermined by the Community.
    Miss Hoey: What advice would the Prime Minister give to a young person sleeping on the streets in my constituency tonight who cannot get a home because he cannot get a job and cannot get a job because he cannot get a home?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will be aware that a great deal of extra money has been allocated to homelessness, particularly to building through the Housing Corporation—some £815 million this year. She will also be aware that there are now 100,000 more vacancies on youth training schemes than people taking them up, that income support is available for young people and that housing benefit is available to 16 and 17-year-olds in great need at the same rate at which it is paid to older applicants. A great deal has been done and I am sure that she will bear in mind all those matters when she takes up cases.
    Mr. Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hannam: Tomorrow, when my right hon. Friend speaks on the environment at the United Nations, will she point out that the most effective way of protecting the environment is through energy efficiency, in which Britain has a superb record,—having achieved a 33 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation—and that our level of energy efficiency is twice the average for countries in the European Community?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. My hon. Friend has delivered Britain's excellent record on energy efficiency. It is very good, indeed it is better than that of many of our competitors. He will also be aware that since 1973 we have increased output by about 26 per cent. That was achieved with a reduction in energy usage of 4 per cent. That is a good record which augurs well for the future. It is extremely important for the environment that we continue to be a keen and active supporter of greater energy efficiency.
    Mr. Eadie: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Eadie: As many people are wondering whether the Government team in office this week will be the Government team in office next week, I wish to ask the Prime Minister an easy question. Does she feel entirely

    833
    happy when her Foreign Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"] Yes, which one? Does she feel entirely happy when he goes to the United Nations? Does she feel wholly happy that he will be sitting next to a representative of the Pol Pot regime?
    The Prime Minister: On the hon. Gentleman's point about changes, I have the impression that the Opposition Front Bench has changed recently and that there are now rather more CND people on it than there were before.

Clapham Junction Accident (Report)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the results of the inquiry into the Clapham junction rail disaster of December 1988.
I am publishing today, as a Command Paper, the report by Sir Anthony Hidden on his investigation under the Regulation of Railways Act 1871 into the causes and circumstances of the accident.
I know that I speak for the whole House in expressing my deepest sympathy for the relatives and friends of the 35 people who died as a result of the accident. Our sympathies go, too, to the many people who were injured, some of them seriously and some of whom are permanently disabled; and to the many others, both passengers and rescuers, who bear the mental scars of that harrowing day.
Equally, I speak for the whole House in paying tribute to the many people who gave unstintingly of their skills, courage and kindness that day; policemen, ambulance men and firemen, doctors and nurses, railwaymen and local authority staff, and, not least, members of the public. As Sir Anthony Hidden comments, a deep debt of gratitude is owed to them all.
Sir Anthony Hidden concludes that the accident was caused by faulty wiring work carried out on Sunday 27 November 1988 during a major investment programme to modernise signalling on the lines into Waterloo. That faulty work could and should have been discovered through routine checks, but the wiring was not checked and the fault was not found.
During later resignalling work on Sunday 11 December a wire that should have been removed two weeks before was accidentally moved. That made an electrical connection into the Clapham junction signal box that passed false messages to one of the signals on the main line into Waterloo.
The investigation has revealed major defects in the way in which British Rail's southern region signalling and telecommunications department organised resignalling work and supervised and tested completed wiring. The report makes 93 recommendations. Some are directed towards preventing a recurrence of an accident of that type; others are addressed to securing improvements in British Rail's management and organisational systems for safety. Others are directed to the emergency services, and some to the Government.
I am asking BR to deal promptly with all the recommendations addressed to it, and to report to me on their implementation within three months. Many of the recommendations are based on BR's suggestions or on the conclusions of BR's own internal inquiry. BR has already taken action to implement those, although in some cases Sir Anthony Hidden recommends faster implementation. In particular, BR is already committed to two important new developments—automatic train protection, and the installation of cab radios.
BR has anticipated some of the additional cost of implementing the report in its current spending plans. I have endorsed that provision in full. BR will need to consider what further expenditure will be required. I can assure the House that finance will not stand in the way of the implementation of the report.
836
I have today written to the chairmen of London Regional Transport and the passenger transport executives asking them, where appropriate, to consider their own systems carefully in the light of the report, and to report to me on their proposals for implementing the relevant recommendations within three months.
While the inquiry was sitting, two further railway accidents took place—at Purley on 4 March 1989, and at Bellgrove two days later. Separate inquiries into those two accidents have been carried out by the railway inspectorate and the reports will be published in due course. At my predecessor's request, Sir Anthony Hidden and his team considered whether there were any common issues between the accidents. His report does not suggest that there was any single underlying cause. His wider recommendations were made in the light of all three accidents.
As I have said, some of Sir Anthony Hidden's recommendations are addressed to the Government. The report recommends that railway legislation should be reviewed, and the powers of the railway inspectorate widened and clarified. We shall introduce the necessary legislation as soon as an opportunity arises. Meanwhile, most of the changes can be implemented by administrative action. Where this has not already been done, I have asked that action should be taken urgently by both my Department and BR.
The report asks me to ensure that the railway inspectorate is adequately staffed to implement the report. Additional inspectors are being recruited and their numbers will be expanded as necessary.
The report recommends a thorough study of appraisal procedures for the safety elements of investment proposals. All investment submissions which come to me for approval already include a specific section on safety issues. My Department will discuss with British Rail what further improvements can be made.
The report asks the Government to ensure that British Rail is allocated sufficient frequencies to operate cab radios effectively. We have now allocated five new frequencies to British Rail and given it access to two others. That fully meets its requirements.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has considered the recommendations addressed to his Department. He has already introduced a review of the health services' response to major incidents with a view to preparing revised guidelines. His Department has accepted the remaining recommendations which affect it.
I have considered Sir Anthony Hidden's recommendations on the costs of representation at the investigation and have accepted them in full.
Finally, I am very grateful to Sir Anthony Hidden and his assessors for their thorough investigation and their clear and constructive report. I know that Sir Robert Reid and his board are determined to make sure that the lessons of this tragedy are thoroughly learnt and properly implemented. The necessary action will have the Government's fullest support.
Mr. John Prescott: Our thoughts today are with the relatives and friends of the 35 people who died and those who were seriously injured in this terrible tragedy who will be looking to the House to learn all the lessons of Sir Anthony Hidden's report and to take immediate action. Therefore, we support all that has been said by the Secretary of State on that matter.

837
We welcome the Secretary of State's endorsement of the tributes to the work and courage of all those in the emergency services—the police, the fire and especially the ambulance services—who were on the scene within 10 minutes of the tragedy, and to the many others who were involved.
I am sure that the House will wish to share Sir Anthony Hidden's public condemnation of those few reporters who caused considerable distress by harassing relatives and their families, and support his call to those who have it in their power to prevent such practices in the future.
We congratulate Sir Anthony Hidden and his staff on their report, and on the professional and thorough way in which they carried out their task, producing a report which shows clearly that safety has suffered at the expense of financial and commercial considerations.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the report reveals starkly the dangers of policies that led to the presence of overworked, exhausted staff, many of whom lacked proper training, and who suffered from low pay and poor morale? That was due to a management that strove so hard to achieve tough financial and commercial targets set by the Government that basic safety concerns were lost. The report is thus a powerful indictment of both inadequate management and the Government's policy.
Surely the report demands a rethink by both the Government and British Rail's senior management of the policies adopted over the past 10 years. Does the Secretary of State now accept the need for an independent railway inspectorate, outside the influence of his Department, with more staff and greater powers and involved in every aspect of safety?
Sir Anthony Hidden recommends the introduction of automatic train protection systems, cab radios and black boxes. As the Secretary of State received the report in September, can he now tell the House how much such measures will cost, and give us an assurance that he is ready to give the go-ahead immediately for that vital investment—especially as British Rail's chairman told the inquiry that unless public funding was provided the Government must bear responsibility for the consequences?
Does the Secretary of State share my concern at the fact that one third of the signalling and telecommunications staff involved in the resignalling work had not had a day off for 13 weeks, and that another third had had only one in a fortnight? Does he also share Sir Anthony Hidden's concern about the cuts in staffing levels? Staff numbers in the permanent way, signals and telecommunications section have been cut by 18 per cent. in the past five years.
Is it not apparent to the Secretary of State that those cuts are a direct result of the 51 per cent. cut—a cut of more than £2 billion—in Government grants to British Rail over the same five-year period? Does he agree with Mr. Maurice Holmes, director of safety, who, in a letter to a colleague that is quoted in the report, expressed concern at the fact that a business-led approach to management was in danger of eroding safety standards in British Rail? Is it not clear from the report's recommendations that that is indeed the case?
When the Secretary of State issues a new set of objectives to the board, will he ensure—unlike his predecessors—that safety is seen as being as important as
838
efficiency or cost-cutting? Will he comment on speculation that the report has been passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions? Does he agree that there has been a clear legal understanding that all transport operators, including British Rail, should have corporate responsibility for the safety of their operations?
Will the Secretary of State adopt a new approach to management, investment and revenue support so that never again do we see tired, overworked, demoralised staff make a fatal error on a dark, cold Sunday evening as they rush to finish the work before the Monday morning rush hour?
Mr. Parkinson: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) for the gracious way in which he acknowledged the work done by the emergency services and by Sir Anthony Hidden.
Let me deal first with a central point to which the hon. Gentleman returned throughout his remarks—the suggestion that safety had been put at risk because of shortage of funds. British Rail made it clear in its evidence to the inquiry that its spending on safety had never been constrained by the shortage of funds. The hon. Member consistently fails to understand that British Rail's revenue has increased more quickly than the grant has decreased. Therefore, the cash resources available to British Rail for investment have been growing. British Rail is pursuing the biggest investment programme for 25 years.
The report makes it clear that even if there were constraints on investment expenditure in the late 1970s, when the hon. Gentleman's party was in government, and the early 1980s, those constraints have been eased and that a full investment programme is now being carried through. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should read the report a little more carefully, but it is a big document and I know that he has not had it for long.
Mr. Prescott: Two hours.
Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman keeps on talking about management's contribution. Management does not shirk its responsibility, but I draw his attention to at least two occasions in the report when the unions' attitude is quoted by Sir Anthony. He says that unless the unions start to adopt a more flexible attitude and to negotiate more carefully with management, British Rail will continue to be short of the skilled staff that it needs. In other words, co-operation is needed between management and unions. That is spelt out very clearly in the report. It is mentioned twice as a constraint on the employment of skilled people.
As for investment in radios, the hon. Gentleman knows that the principal problem with the radios was to get the frequencies released. We have now released five frequencies, and have access to two others. For the first time the full range of frequencies is now available. British Rail, as I said in my statement, can spend whatever is necessary to inroduce radios into cabs.
I note what the hon. Gentleman said about Mr. Holmes. It is true that Mr. Holmes was becoming concerned. He said that at that time British Rail was still operating on the right side of the safety line but that he was becoming concerned. We have started to tackle the problem by a massive increase in the investment programme, which is now under way.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the report would be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

839
The police are conducting their own investigation and will be making their report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. If he wishes to use the report for further evidence or investigation, it is open to him.
I conclude as I began by saying that the Government are absolutely committed to safety as a top priority. Funds will be made available to meet the standards that British Rail and the Government agree.
Mr. John BowisI thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I endorse the sympathy that he expressed to all those affected and the tributes that he paid to the many people in and around my constituency who went to help on that occasion—not least the boys from Emanuel school who clambered down the bank to bring succour to those who were injured and, in many cases, dying and the police who both helped on the day and subsequently accompanied those who had been involved back to their homes to make sure that there were no long-term after effects.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on their swift response to the recommendations. Sir Anthony Hidden's report seems to be very thorough, and we should congratulate him on it.
In the light of the comments by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), it is only right and fair to point out that Sir Anthony pays a considerable tribute to the chairman of British Rail for the emphasis he places on safety. I hope that the underlying message in the report is seen by the public as being that safety on British Rail is paramount. I hope that the travelling public will be reassured that safety on British Rail is of a very high quality and that the busiest stretch of rail in this country is also one of the safest.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the light of the points made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, it is ironic that the incident occurred not as a result of cuts but as a result of investment? The investment in new signalling tragically led to the incident. Will my right hon. Friend reiterate his pledge that as much money as is necessary to carry out the recommendations on safety will be forthcoming?
Will my right hon. Friend examine one point which may not be in the report—overcrowding on trains—and consider whether any further measures need to be taken, not because of overcrowding on particular trains but because of the overcrowding that can occur on local commuter trains which are not subject to the same guidelines on overcrowding that apply to long-distance trains?
Mr. Parkinson: I join my hon. Friend in his tribute to the public, and especially to the boys at Emanuel school who did a tremendous job that horrific morning. I agree with him that the inspector mentions the chairman of British Rail in the report and compliments him on the sincerity of his commitment to total safety. He says that he had no doubt of Sir Robert Reid's absolute commitment to make safety the highest possible priority. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is ironic that such a terrible accident arose from the modernisation of the system. Investment in the modernisation of the signalling system produced that dreadful accident. I confirm that we have made it quite clear that money will be no obstacle to implementing the recommendations.
840
The report addresses the question of overcrowding, and concludes that it played no part in the number of casualties. It says that there is no evidence that those who were standing suffered any greater injuries than those who were sitting. But I agree with my hon. Friend that overcrowding should be avoided. That is why we are in the process of a massive programme of modernisation of Network SouthEast, the improvement of the rolling stock and the lengthening of stations to produce a better, safer system for the travelling public.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I associate my colleagues and myself with the expressions of sympathy and with the tributes to those who carried out the inquiry and produced the report and to all those members of the emergency services who attended the accident. Surely the summary of the lessons of the report is that there must be increasing emphasis on the need for safety investment and inspection.
With inspection in mind, given that the accident has now been shown to have been preventable, and given that there is an annual litany of preventable accidents on British Rail, will the Secretary of State consider the need substantially to increase the size and the power of the inspectorate? Will he consider whether it should be given the authority to act independently and at all times decide whether it needs more resources? A strong and effective inspectorate might have ensured that what went wrong before the Clapham incident was corrected before the disaster occurred. Perhaps that is the best lesson and the best tribute that the House could give to those who died and the bereaved.
Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tone and the content of his remarks. I entirely agree with him, and so does the entire board of British Rail, that there must be increasing emphasis on the need for safety and investment in safety. Bringing the thought and culture of safety into the minds of all British Rail employees is a prime objective. Ironically, a director of safety had been appointed one month before the accident, and his duty is to promote thinking about safety at all levels and at all stages of investment.
I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the inspectorate, but supervision of the day-to-day work of those carrying out difficult jobs is the key. Safety is not determined by the number of inspectors. It is important that they are available, but the main issue is the quality of the supervision on a day-to-day basis of the men doing the job. That is what failed in this instance. We have the highest number of inspectors that we have ever had. We are in the process of increasing their number by eight following the recommendation of the Fennell report and we will be increasing it by another four following this report. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that increased numbers are necessary.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: Thousands of my constituents are among those using the Waterloo line every working day. They and everyone else will welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said about safety and the emphasis he placed upon it. Can he say anything specific about the steps to be taken in the future to monitor signalling performance? That seems to have been the flaw in this case.
Mr. Parkinson: Following the accident, the board has taken a number of specific steps already. I mentioned earlier the appointment of a director of safety. It took the decision one month before the incident to introduce automatic train protection and it is pursuing it with vigour now. It has gone out to tender on a pilot project. However, the technology necessary to introduce it is not available off the shelf and, as Sir Anthony recognises, British Rail will have to develop it. He says that, when the technology has been evolved, it should be introduced over a shorter time scale than British Rail was planning; it was thinking of 10 years and he says that it should be five.
British Rail commissioned a major safety audit and every comparable piece of technology has been inspected. It has decided to invest in cab radios. It suggested many of the recommendations included in the report and is pursuing them now.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Secretary of State concede that the pressures placed by the Government on top management for performance and their subsequent pressures on middle management place impossible pressures on those on the job? Does Sir Anthony Hidden's report refer to competition from privatised British Telecom for telecommunications engineers? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that some of us do not believe what the Government say about rail safety when he and the Minister of State are specifically permitting London Underground Ltd. to extend one-person operation to its deeper tubes which will deliberately and measurably reduce standards of safety which are already unsatisfactory?
Mr. Parkinson: I have made the point—the hon. Gentleman can look at the figures—that there is now record investment in British Rail, and a substantial sum will be spent to implement the recommendations made in the report. I realise that the hon. Gentleman has not had the chance that I have had to study the report, but he should study it carefully. In the report, Sir Anthony says two things. First, he says that it would be pointless for British Rail to start creating a wage spiral by competing with other people for the skilled men available, and the report mentions British Telecom. Secondly, he says that, unless there is more flexibility and co-operation between management and unions in finding ways of solving these problems, there will continue to be a shortage of labour. It will need co-operation from all men of good will in the system and not just management.
Mr. Robert Adley: Those of us who have constituents who were bereaved in the accident will be grateful to Sir Anthony Hidden for the thoroughness of his report, which can be judged by what has been said today, and to my right hon. Friend for the speed with which he has accepted its recommendations.
My right hon. Friend referred to false messages coming from the signals. Is it not true that for the past 150 years of railway history, when we have had tragic accidents due to signalling failures, they have invariably led to further safety measures being introduced? Although that is no consolation to the bereaved, is it not a reassurance to the travelling public?
I want to ask my right hon. Friend a specific question relating to blame. Does he accept that there is a fundamental difference between a private sector ferry operator operating in competition with other operators
842
and a nationalised industry trying to provide a public service—part funded by the taxpayer—for social reasons? Bearing in mind the discussion about the DPP, where do the sponsoring Departments stand? My right hon. Friend cannot answer that serious question now, but he must consider it in future.
Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend says that we must learn from this accident, and that that has been the pattern in the past. That is why Sir Anthony was appointed and has done such a thorough job and made his 93 recommendations. He twice referred to the danger of relying totally on hindsight. He said that men of good will carrying out their work, as the people on that occasion were, can make mistakes and that it is very easy for other people, with the benefit of hindsight, to point to the mistakes. My hon. Friend is not arguing for that spirit of acrimony. He is saying, "Let us learn lessons", and I hope that we are doing that.
Mr. Tony Banks: I associate the London group of London hon. Members with the Secretary of State's tribute to the emergency services. Would it not be a more fitting tribute to the ambulance workers, who did such a valuable job, if the Government were prepared to concede their case for a reasonable wage increase? Is the Secretary of State prepared to speak to other Ministers so that the rightful demands of that hard-working group of emergency workers—the ambulance workers—is met in full? If he does not do so, Government statements on and tributes to the emergency services simply appear to be hypocrisy and cant.
Mr. Parkinson: I cannot get involved in the present industrial dispute. It has never been questioned that the Government put great value on the work of the emergency services. Sir Anthony underlines that point in his report. I acknowledge publicly, as the report does, the great debt that we owed to the London ambulance service on that occasion and on many others.
Mr. David Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the recommendations on the response of the health services, particularly counselling services, for the bereaved? Does he agree that, with hindsight, one of the lessons to be learnt from the Clapham tragedy, as from others, is that the services should be maintained far longer than has been the case to date?
Mr. Parkinson: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health is taking the recommendations extremely seriously. My hon. Friend draws attention to one of them. My right hon. and learned Friend has accepted the recommendations in full and will be implementing them.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Does the Secretary of State accept that it would do much for public confidence if the safety inspectorate were not within a sponsoring Department but were entirely separate and independent? That is true about the North sea and transport.
Mr. Parkinson: There is no criticism whatsoever of the railway inspectorate in the report. The report endorses its work by making recommendations that its powers should be extended. For instance, it states that it should have the power to study the safety and manufacture of rolling

843
stock. That is an oversight and it will be corrected. The inspectorate is not criticised. It is not exactly praised, but the fact that it should be given extra duties is evidence of the report's view of its importance. There has been a long argument about the location of the safety inspectorate. I am interested only in its contribution to safety. I am examining its location, and I will report to the House as soon as I can.
Mr. John Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if we had time to study the report and to reflect on it before making too many off-the-cuff comments? Nevertheless, I hope that he will encourage British Rail to deal sympathetically and speedily with any financial problems that the victims may still have, because no word spoken in this House by hon. Members of any party will alter the position of those people who will suffer for a long time to come and to whom we have all expressed our sympathy.
Mr. Parkinson: One of the satisfactory features of this sad incident was the prompt way in which the chairman of British Rail went to the scene and accepted full responsibility to the relatives on behalf of the board. I shall bring my hon. Friend's comments to his attention. However, if my hon. Friend has any evidence that that is not happening, I should be only too happy to follow it up as a matter of great urgency. I know that British Rail is anxious to do the right thing by those who have suffered from the tragedy.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I am a former railway worker and I believe that the Secretary of State has relations in the railways. Does he agree that, in view of the long hours worked by railway workers, there should be a substantial increase in their wages and in the number of staff? When such demands are made, is the Secretary of State prepared to be sympathetic to them and to encourage his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet to be sympathetic also?
Mr. Parkinson: The inspector states that the electrician concerned had worked long hours but that he was not physically tired. However, the inspector went on to say that he felt that those long hours could have blunted the edge of the electrician's concentration and might thus have affected the way in which he did his job.
I agree that there is a real problem—indeed, Sir Anthony touches on it in the report—in attracting to this skilled work the skilled people that we need. I do not say this in any spirit of acrimony, but Sir Anthony states that, to find a way round that problem, both management and unions will have to show a greater sense of flexibility than they have been prepared to do to date.
The promotion structure for electricians, for example, prevents skilled people from coming in at anything other than the bottom grade, which means that skilled people do not want to join the service. Sir Anthony has said that that is the result of an agreement between British Rail and the National Union of Railwaymen and that it is one of the things that needs to be examined. We are not talking acrimoniously, but to find a way round what is clearly a problem, unions and management will have to talk seriously together about ways of changing some of the old practices.
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the comprehensive nature of the
844
report will be widely welcomed by my constituents who use the railway line in question daily, and especially by those families that were so tragically affected by this serious accident?
May I press my right hon. Friend on the question of two-way radios? Is he aware that the Wessex electric rolling stock is the most modern on Network SouthEast and enables passengers to make telephone calls from the train? When will two-way radios be installed? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there is no truth in the rumour that the delay in allocating frequencies was a result of resistance from the Department of Trade and Industry?
Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. Friend knows, there has been great pressure on wave lengths and it has been difficult to obtain the necessary frequencies. That has been a big obstacle, but those problems have now been resolved, as I have said. The exclusive use of five frequencies and access to two others should now ensure that swift progress can be made on going ahead with cab radios. I do not think that British Rail needs any prompting from me about this, but if it does, I should be happy to give that prompting.
Dr. John Marek: It is a pity that the Secretary of State has said only today that there is enough finance available for safety on the railways. That statement should have been made 10 years ago. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to blame everybody except the Government. Is he aware that there has been a prolific growth in the number of unmanned level crossings in the past 10 years and that there were countless deaths until Professor Stott made a report which put things right? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the accident at Bellgrove would not have happened—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that time is short this afternoon. Will he please confine his remarks to the report under discussion?
Dr. Marek: The Bellgrove accident was mentioned, Mr. Speaker; British Rail was trying to save money, and that accident would not have happened had British Rail not been trying to save money.
Is the Minister aware that the Clapham accident occurred simply because British Rail was strapped for cash in trying to modernise an outdated system? There is a charge of corporate murder which should be addressed, but it should be addressed not by British Rail management, who were accomplices, but by the Government.
Mr. Parkinson: It took Sir Anthony Hidden and his assessors more than 50 days, listening to evidence, to arrive at their conclusions. The hon. Gentleman has dismissed their work, dismissed their report, drawn on his prejudices and talked nonsense.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend continue to refute, as he has done effectively this afternoon, the allegation made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) that this accident occurred through lack of investment? It is fair game for the Opposition to attack the Government on almost any issue, but not on a matter where lives have been lost. The Opposition should not try to turn that to party

845
political advantage. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, there is, in any case, no evidence to show that what the Opposition allege is true.
Will my right hon. Friend agree that there is no evidence anywhere in the world to show that efficient, profitable and well-run industries are any less safe than old-fashioned nationalised industries? Is it not a fact that the record of privatised companies has been superb? In other words, nothing can be blamed on anything to do with the move to make British Rail more efficient, a move which, in the end, will lead to greater safety through greater investment.
Mr. Parkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the fact that the report shows that British Rail said in its evidence to the inquiry that at no time has it been constrained by a shortage of financial resources in making safety a high priority. British Rail now has the biggest investment programme it has ever had. Opposition Members and I disagree because they believe that one shows one's commitment to a system by the size of the subsidy. We believe that it is important to modernise and improve the system. As the subsidy has been reduced, the investment has gone up, and we think that that is the right way to proceed.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, wherever the investment goes, it is not available to provide enough trained men and women, kneeling in the dark trying to rush to finish a job when they are exhausted because they have been working compulsory overtime? Will he accept that all the oleaginous expressions of regret about safety will not do anything to protect the passengers if the men and women who work on our railways, who are forbidden now by their masters from making any public statement about their fears of what is going wrong, are not given proper wages, proper support and investment in time and money rather than the abstruse arguments that the Minister has used this afternoon?
Mr. Parkinson: I am aware that the hon. Lady has taken an interest in this subject for a long time and that she represents a major railway town, but on this occasion I totally disagree with her. The problems of British Rail are clear and they are analysed carefully. Sir Anthony says that British Rail is having trouble in attracting sufficient numbers of skilled people. He outlines some of the causes, and I am telling the hon. Lady that the problem is infinitely more complex than she made it sound in her intervention.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend accept that an important part of his statement for many people has been the refutation that there is any linkage between this accident and those which, sadly, followed at Purley and in Glasgow? In regard to those who are particularly concerned with Purley, he will recall that it was agreed that the inquiry should be held in public and that the findings should be published. He said that he hoped that they would be published in due course. He will appreciate that we are anxious to determine what the separate causes of the other accidents were.
Mr. Parkinson: I must tell my hon. Friend that publication of those reports has been delayed at the request of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On money, what does the Secretary of State quietly say to Jimmy Knapp when he complains about skilled men leaving British Rail to do maintenance on local authority car park barriers? What exactly is meant in the eighth paragraph of the right hon. Gentleman's statement when it says that finance will not stand in the way? What is the agreement with the Treasury about extra money? What sum has been talked about between the Department of Transport and the Treasury as a result of the Clapham accident which will be made available as a result of Sir Anthony Hidden's report? What figures, in pounds, have been discussed?
Mr. Parkinson: On the second point, provision was made before the report was received, in anticipation of the sort of expenditure that might be necessary, and it is already built into the public expenditure arrangements which I agreed with the Treasury. If further resources are necessary, and they will be, I give the hon. Gentleman an absolutely unqualified assurance that they will be made available.
Mr. Graham Riddick: It is clear from the terrible accident at Clapham and also from the serious and shocking accident that occurred at Huddersfield station last night that the possibility of accidents is greatly heightened when modernisation of the line or of signalling—in the case of Huddersfield, the modernisation of the station itself—is taking place. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that British Rail has taken steps to ensure that its employees are particularly vigilant and safety conscious at such times? Will he take this opportunity to confirm that a full inquiry will take place into the events at Huddersfield station last night? Will he also take this opportunity to join me in expressing gratitude to the emergency services at Huddersfield and also in sending best wishes to those who were injured in that accident?
Mr. Parkinson: I have had a preliminary report on the Huddersfield accident, but I cannot comment further because the investigation will be under way. As soon as I can tell the House anything else, I will, but at the moment I believe that it would be unfair to those concerned to prejudge the inquiry. My hon. Friend is right in intimating that both accidents arose from investment in modernisation. If he reads the report, he will find that the inspector says that it was because the modernisation was not properly planned and supervised that the dreadful accident happened. British Rail has tried very hard to learn from that and, as I have already said, it has accepted and will implement the recommendations. We shall look at the Huddersfield accident to see whether there is more to be done or whether mistakes were made. I cannot prejudge that issue now, but the arrival of the ambulance men on the scene within four minutes was very impressive and I pay tribute to that.
Mr. Harry Ewing: The Secretary of State has made many references this afternoon to the inflexibility of the trade unions in the railway industry. If by that he means that he wants more multi-skilled people on the railway, I advise him to read the very good health and safety report, which shows that in industries where there is multi-skilling the accident rate is much higher than it is in other industries where single-skilled tradesmen are employed.

847
I divert the Secretary of State's attention to his reference to the Glasgow Bellgrove accident report. The report on that accident cannot possibly be delayed at the request of the DPP, whose remit does not run to Scotland. There has already been an inquiry into the Glasgow Bellgrove accident under the fatal accident inquiry legislation in Scotland. That kind of bad briefing, slipshod approach does not give us the confidence to believe that Ministers have learnt the lessons of those accidents and that they will not happen again.
Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to correct the record. The Purley report has been delayed at the request of the DPP. The Bellgrove report has been delayed because, as he knows, one of the key witnesses was too ill to give evidence. I apologise to the House for bracketing the two, but I did not wish to mislead the House. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to put that right.
Paragraph 16.77 of the report states:
"The internal promotion system which is an inevitable handicap to BR in satisfactorily filling the higher posts in its wages grade staff in the S and T Department, is the result of a formal agreement between BR and the NUR. It is a fetter on the acquisition of skilled staff and it is long overdue for reconsideration."
That is the spirit in which I have been referring to the unions today. Management and unions must get together to develop modern working practices for a modern railway system. That will need an effort on both their parts.
Mr. Peter Snape: May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to paragraph 14.36 of Sir Anthony Hidden's report in which he makes specific reference to the need for safety to be included in the objectives of the British Railways Board.
Does the Secretary of State recall a letter sent by one of his predecessors, the right hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore), to the chairman of British Rail on 21 October 1986 setting out the objectives which the Government wanted British Rail to pursue over the next three years? The letter was more than 1,000 words in length, but there was no mention of passenger safety, although there are plenty of references to the need to cut costs, to improve efficiency, to increase the rate of return on investment, to reduce the public service obligation grant requirement, and to increase the role of the private sector. There is no mention of safety. Does the Secretary of State share Sir Anthony Hidden's concern about that?
Will the Secretary of State comment on the fact that staffing levels in the permanent way, signal and telecommunications section, have been cut by 18 per cent. in the past five years? Were the staffing cuts the direct result of the cut of 51 per cent. in Government grants to British Rail over the same five-year period?
Paragraph 14.40 of the report states:
"It is clear that if sensible decisions are to be made by BR and by Government on the most effective use of funds for saving the lives and reducing the injuries of staff and passengers, then it must establish a way of assessing in financial terms the effect on safety of investment schemes. Both the Government and BR need to conduct a thorough review of its investment appraisal procedures so that a financial value can be put on safety."
The Secretary of State makes great play of the fact that the accident took place at a time of considerable investment in the signalling system. Is he aware that the Waterloo area resignalling scheme was approved in 1978 and that, despite that approval, Clapham junction A signal box, which
848
played a central part in the tragic accident and which was built in 1936, still signals half the trains through the busiest junction in the world? So much for all the investment under this Government over the past decade.
Does the Secretary of State accept that both our fathers worked in the railway industry and that if my father was still here he would be appalled at the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to shuffle off responsibility for the accident on to the railway unions instead of acknowledging the financial hostility of the Government of which he is a member?
Mr. Parkinson: Like the hon. Gentleman, I am proud of the fact that my father was a railwayman. Nothing that I have said this afternoon could be described by anyone who was remotely objective as shuffling off.
The report recognises that management accepts its responsibility. It recognises that there were faults and it is determined to correct them. The report draws attention to the fact that that correction will require the co-operation of the unions. The hon. Gentleman is drawing a totally misleading and, I suspect, deliberate inference from my remarks.
In the letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred from my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore), although safety is not referred to directly, the legislation has safety as its prime objective. However, I am drawing up new objectives for British Rail, and I will spell out safety in a much more specific way.
The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to say that the level of staffing is connected with the level of grant. I must point out to him over and over again that, although Opposition Members continually complain about the level of fares, the income from fares has made up for the shortfall from the subsidy. We believe that eliminating wasteful subsidy and ploughing money into investment is a far better way.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the appraisal of safety investment. It is a difficult and rather morbid business to try to attach a value to a life. However, we recognise that it is vital that better ways are found of appraising safety.
Investment in safety, about which there is a myth, is riot required to produce any sort of return: safety is justified as safety. The idea that it has to pass a profit test is quite wrong—
Mr. Snape: Read the report.
Mr. Parkinson: When assessing two systems, one might take into account which gave better value for money, but no return is required.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the 1978 scheme. It has taken a long time for that scheme to be introduced and fully implemented—
Ms. Clare Short: Why?
Mr. Parkinson: If the hon. Lady reads the report, she will find out why. The whole report is about the problems of planning and making arrangements, and about 93 recommendations for improving the system.
I conclude as I began. This was a dreadful accident which changed the lives of many of those who survived and caused great loss to the families of the 35 who died. It is our duty to learn everything that we can from the dreadful tragedy in as unacrimonious way as possible. We shall be implementing the 93 recommendations as a matter of urgency. The chairman of British Rail is coming to see

849
me tomorrow morning at 8.30 and we shall discuss how to get a move on with the recommendations that are not being implemented at the moment.

Ambulance Service (Pay Dispute)
4.27 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the ambulance dispute in the National Health Service.
The situation in the London ambulance service is that the trade unions have reimposed their 14 conditions for the operation of the accident and emergency service, which means that the management of the London ambulance service are unable to provide a guaranteed accident and emergency service for London. The unions have in effect called out their accident and emergency service members in sympathy with non-emergency men who have been required to work normally if they are to be paid in full.
Nearly all accident and emergency services in the area served by the LAS are now being provided by the St. John Ambulance brigade, the Red Cross and the Metropolitan police.
Following earlier discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, I have now asked him if the armed forces would assist the police and voluntary services in providing an accident and emergency service in London. In view of the gravity of the situation and the need to maintain an essential service to the public, my right hon. Friend has agreed to my request. He has given instructions to the armed forces to provide assistance in London and they will be deployed with the police and voluntary services from tomorrow afternoon.
The Government have taken this step with the greatest reluctance. We would very much prefer to see a full accident and emergency service provided by trained ambulancemen but that is impossible while the unions continue to insist on all the 14 conditions which they have imposed. I must stress that the involvement of the armed forces, the police and the voluntary services will cease once the trade unions agree, as they did two weeks ago, to provide a normal accident and emergency service.
Mr. Robin Cook: Yesterday the Secretary of State advised the House that he resented the allegation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that he had made unpleasant comments about the ambulance staff. Is he aware that every broadcasting bulletin this morning quoted him as describing ambulance staff as "pretending and posturing"? Can he confirm that he used those words? Does he really believe that that kind of language helps to resolve a dispute which has reached the crisis and severity that prompted this statement?
We have just heard a statement which reminded the whole House of the debt that we owe to the emergency services because the report praises the courage and professionalism of the emergency staff at the Clapham accident. In the light of those words, how can the Secretary of State invite ambulance staff to settle for 6·5 per cent. when firemen have been awarded 8·6 per cent. and the police 9·2 per cent.? Is he aware that yesterday both the police and the firemen gave their complete support to the ambulance staff in their demand for parity?
Is the Secretary of State aware that at this moment in every ambulance station in London ambulance staff are ready and waiting to provide emergency cover? Is he aware that in those stations it is management that has now

851
refused to put through the emergency calls? Is it not clear that it is not ambulance staff who have withdrawn emergency cover from London but the management of the London ambulance service?
The Secretary of State said that from tomorrow the Army will be called in to provide cover in London. Can he confirm that many of the Army personnel who will be providing the cover have been trained on the basis of a refresher course lasting 48 hours? Was it really possible in those two days to train them in the techniques of defibrillation, incubation or infusion? Why rely on men who are not trained for the trauma that they will have to meet and who have no experience of meeting it when we have trained ambulance staff waiting at stations to do the work?
Can the Secretary of State confirm that in the eight weeks of the dispute he has never once sat down with the staff side of the ambulance men? Would it not have been better to talk to the ambulance staff before he talked to his colleagues at the Ministry of Defence?
Finally, can the Secretary of State answer the question that has remained unanswered since the dispute began and that remains its central mystery? If he is so right in offering ambulance staff 6·5 per cent. and if the ambulance staff are so unreasonable in rejecting it, why is he so afraid to go to arbitration which would end the dispute this afternoon? Instead of calling in the Army, why not call in the arbitrators and give back to London a proper ambulance service?
Mr. Clarke: It is quite obvious that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) takes the view that was taken by some of his hon. Friends about an hour ago in Question Time that the people of London will get their accident and emergency service back when the ambulancemen are given the money that NUPE demands, whatever that may be.
The 6·5 per cent. offer that the hon. Gentleman complains about is not what is on offer to the men taking the industrial action that I have described. Qualified men in London are all being offered at least 9·3 per cent. under the existing offer. The 6·5 per cent. is available to the rest of the service. When judging the present action it is worth recalling that NUPE and the other trade unions recommended the 6·5 per cent. offer to their members for settlement. They are entitled to change their mind, but I get increasingly irritated by Mr. Poole describing as appalling an offer that he recommended only a month or two ago and regarding the rejection of that offer as justifying such dangerous action against the general public in London as he is proposing.
We are talking about last year's pay settlements in the course of which NUPE settled the claims of many of its members in the National Health Service for 6·5 per cent.
The men from the Army who will be coming in tomorrow afternoon are in many cases less well paid than the ambulancemen whose jobs they will be taking. They took a 6·8 per cent. settlement, as did the nurses and some other groups. If people wish to discuss the issues of the amount, they should be discussed, as management has been suggesting throughout, in the Whitley council. Mr. Duncan Nichol, the chief executive of the National Health Service, has constantly tried to reopen negotiations. There is nothing in the case that NUPE now claims in rejecting an offer that it commended to its men only a month or two ago that justifies such disgraceful action as it is organising in London at the moment.
852
The hon. Member for Livingston asked about my comments this morning. I have not heard any of the media, but I hope and trust that I have been reported more accurately than in the potted version given by the hon. Gentleman. I referred to the fact that the men although doing no work are at the moment still in the ambulance stations. It is the case that they are pretending to be prepared to operate the accident and emergency service when—
Mr. Nigel Spearing: That is disgraceful.
Mr. Clarke: That is not disgraceful. The men know perfectly well—[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Gentleman exploding with rage on the strength of his briefing from NUPE.
Mr. Spearing: That is not so. I have been there.
Mr. Clarke: We had all this out last week. The men knew—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very unseemly to shout in this way. It is not the way that we conduct ourselves here.
Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I looked at the 1 o'clock BBC news and it was made quite clear that Mr. Nichol was not telling the truth, and that the men were there to carry on emergency work, if asked to do it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Everybody must take responsibility for what he says.
Mr. Flannery: He should tell the truth.
Mr. Clarke: The 14 points to which the unions have reverted include a refusal to use the radio telephone sensibly, a refusal to crew up, and other points on which they have not been insisting, such as the adequate provision of red blankets. Last week or two weeks ago, they withdrew some of those points to restore the accident and emergency service and the claim that today's difficulties have somehow been caused by the management is a sick joke being perpetrated by the unions and plainly believed by some Labour Members.
I have no desire to see Army personnel being used on the streets of London to assist the public. That has not had to be done since the last Labour Government did it 10 years ago. The men should now resume accident and emergency working, and honour the promise that NUI'E keeps giving, that the accident and emergency services will not be threatened by the industrial action. We can then return to the business of the industrial dispute, which can be settled if the unions are as willing to enter into sensible negotiations as the management has made it clear for the past two or three weeks that it is.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that the same union, NUPE, allowed the dead to remain unburied in the winter of discontent? Does he also understand that the people of London recognise that, if there are any deaths, the blame for them should be laid at the door of Mr. Poole and NUPE?
Mr. Clarke: I share my hon. Friend's indignation that union leaders face the prospect of risk to the public and then make heated statements saying that it is not their fault, when the origin of the whole problem is that the

853
members—the ambulancemen—are obeying instructions from the union, which were drawn up with the purpose of disrupting the service to the public. I also recall the activities in the last year of the Labour Government, when they gave in to so many of the strikes in the Health Service that eventually all of them went on strike for ever bigger claims, and NUPE was at the forefront.
My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) reminded me of the occasion when he was a local authority leader under the last Labour Government, and Ministers in the Ministry of Defence came to see him to organise the use of the Army and of the Green Goddesses. We know that all that happened was that the then Government gave in to the pay claim, with the result that yet more people went on strike a month or two later.
This dispute is unnecessary. It could be resolved in the Whitley council and it ought to be resolved by sensible negotiation. Nothing in the claim justifies the kind of action that is being taken today.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Secretary of State recognise that public opinion is behind the ambulancemen, because it is clearly seen outside this place, and apparently everywhere except in the Department of Health, that the offer to the ambulance men is unjust, in comparison with offers to the other emergency services? It is a question of political will for him, as the Secretary of State, either to encourage arbitration or to make the funds available to the NHS management to enable a fair settlement. Why will not the Secretary of State respond to that reasonable request? That would do away with the need for industrial action. If he did so, he would be entitled to accept a sensible basis for all the emergency services that would involve no strike agreements and pendulum arbitration. Why does he not adopt that approach?
Mr. Clarke: As I have just said, the 6·5 per cent. offer, as it was then, was negotiated in the Whitley council and was recommended to the men by their own trade unions. Since it was turned down, it has been improved to 9·3 per cent. in London. The ambulancemen negotiated a lower level of settlement than other NHS staff because they received a particularly generous settlement in 1986 and had an hour taken off their working week last year. For all those reasons, the management is justified in saying that any further discussions must start on the basis of that deal, which has been commended so recently by the unions.
I do not accept that comparisons can be made with other emergency services, when only one tenth of the mileage of the ambulance service is taken up by emergencies. We have never had the same pay system for the police, firemen and ambulancemen in Britain under any Government.
I accept that there are paramedics, and people who provide particular parts of the ambulance service, who ought to be appropriately rewarded for those skills. I have seen no sign that the unions are prepared to make that distinction in the settlement that they seek. I find the point of view of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) surprising, because he is not in the Labour party. He said that, because the ambulancemen are on strike, we should turn away from the system of negotiation and give them the money that NUPE says that it wants to
854
restore a vital service to the public. If I were to encourage the management to concede that, NUPE would have a lot more people out on strike in the winter, as it has proved capable of in the past.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, due to the regrettable and irresponsible behaviour of the unions, one man's pay dispute could soon degenerate into another man's loss of life? Will he consider the importance of taking the negotiations out of the political arena? I do not want him to commit himself in any way, shape or form, but will he please not rule out the possibility of a pay review body for the ambulance men?
Mr. Clarke: I am conscious of the first matter that my hon. Friend raised. My prime responsibility and that of my colleagues in the Government, including the Secretary of State for Defence, is to try to ensure public safety as far as that is possible, using the resources available to us in the armed forces and the police. We are bringing in those services because we see the need to protect the public against the consequences of the action now being taken.
As I have already explained, the management view seems to me to be the only view that a truly responsible management could take. There are review bodies for some staff, but we cannot have group after group of Health Service workers taking industrial action, and getting arbitration or a review body after initially being attracted by offers made to them. That way lies chaos.
In the Health Service the management has to weigh up pay claims with services to patients. It is all right for the railways to pay out 8·8 per cent. when railway workers are on strike—they wind up putting the fares up, which nobody likes. It is all very well for Labour councillors to give 8·8 per cent. to their manual workers because they wind up increasing the community charge. If the management of the Health Service starts paying more to people who take individual action against patients, it has to close wards and reduce patient services. A responsible management should not do that.
Mr. Tony Banks: I thought that the Secretary of State's statement was absolutely despicable, and I have heard many despicable statements since 1983. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that to say that ambulance workers are not prepared to provide emergency cover is a monstrous perversion of the truth, and he knows it? Will he explain to the House how we can justify a 10·7 per cent. increase, dating from January, for Members of Parliament when ambulance workers will get only 6·5 per cent.? Is he prepared to organise a vote in the House so that we may see whether Conservative Members are prepared to vote in favour of their wallets rather than of saving lives?
Mr. Clarke: I ask the hon. Gentleman to go away and check the facts. I think that he believes what he says—I accept that he normally does. However, he is lending credibility to the myth that management is causing the present difficulties.
If the hon. Gentleman genuinely wants the accident and emergency services to be maintained, he should advise his constituents who work in the service to operate it normally. They are operating it not normally, but

855
according to conditions which make it impossible to guarantee a service because there is no proper communication with the vehicles.
Last year, the pay increase to hon. Members was equivalent to the ambulance men's offer, which was 6·7 per cent. As Ministers got less I have to gaze around the House to see if any hon. Member can recall the exact percentage increase. This year the pay settlement has been based on the Civil Service settlement in August which was 6·5 per cent. By a quirk of the resolution of the House it happened that the third stage of a deal of 4 per cent. paid earlier was added to that figure for hon. Members. Therefore, the settlement for Members of Parliament is based on the 6·5 per cent. that civil servants accepted in August or September this year. We could carry on arguing about that and about its merits, but it is a matter for the management to settle with the unions in the Whitley council.
The idea that the ambulance men's pay claim justifies risk to life and limb on the streets of London is a grotesque exaggeration.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend's statement has been both factual and honourable, will he not pursue the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes)? In a civilised country, is it not time that those who work in life-saving public emergency services should have their pay taken out of the political arena? They should forgo the right to strike, and the pay for all the emergency services should be dealt with by an independent pay review body as is nurses' pay. That is long overdue.
Mr. Clarke: One could make that case for everyone who works for the Health Service, and many other people who work in public services. The result would be that the management of the National Health Service would have responsibility for the pay and conditions of more than I million people taken out of its hands, and arbitrators would dispose of the resources. Managers would be left to see what they could provide by way of patient services as a result.
These issues can be settled by sensible negotiations. We introduced a review body for the nurses when they refused to take industrial action, while NUPE and other unions had all the other staff out in an industrial dispute. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) remembers that because I think that he was in the Department with me at the time.
It is false to say that ambulance men, in the middle of an industrial dispute caused by NUPE, should be given a review body as a reward. The situation is different from that under which the nurses were given a review body. They have always had a no-strike deal as a part of their constitution and they were given a review body when they refused to take industrial action.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Secretary of State aware that he and his friends are undertaking a massive conspiracy to deceive the public about the true nature of this dispute? Ambulance men and women are underpaid. They have put in a claim for parity with the fire service, which ought to be met. The Secretary of State has misled the House by claiming that the 14-point statement by NUPE in London is anything other than an agreement absolutely and totally to maintain 999 services. It is on his instructions that the ambulance officers this morning were
856
told to stop staff going out on 999 calls. It is the Secretary of State's decision that is preventing the people of London from getting a 999 service.
Members of the unions concerned have made it clear, at every turn, that they will maintain an emergency service. The responsibility for not maintaining the service lies with the Secretary of State and with him alone.
Mr. Clarke: The unions are claiming parity not with firemen but with fifth year firefighters. They do not like first, second, third or fourth year firefighters because that would not make the claim as big. It is an arbitrary choice to link pay with fifth year firefighters, with whom there has been no formal link in the past.
We shall have an accident and emergency service as long as the men who are in that part of the service work it in the ordinary way.
Mr. Corbyn: That is what they are doing.
Mr. Clarke: No, 14 points have been invented that do not normally apply. The hon. Gentleman is maintaining the debate vigorously from a sedentary position, but he cannot deny that those points are not points which usually apply in the service.
Mr. Corbyn: Yes, they do.
Mr. Clarke: They have been invented to disrupt the service and they have succeeded in doing so. The ambulance service cannot discharge its duty to the public until the men agree to work normally, and certainly agree on key matters such as using the radiotelephone.
I tell the House categorically that I did not give instructions to anybody to take the action that the management of the London ambulance service has taken. The managers of the service notified the NHS management executive, and me through the executive, of what it was proposing to do. In my opinion it had no choice if it was to discharge its responsibility to the people of London, except to ask the police and eventually to ask me to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to ask the Army to maintain essential services.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the business that is before the House. There is a Standing Order No. 20 application and a ten-minute Bill. In addition, the House must deal with a long list of amendments to the Local Government and Housing Bill. I shall allow three more questions from each side of the House and then we must move on.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, although the Police Federation is not especially happy that police officers should have to perform the duties of ambulance staff in an industrial dispute, its chairman has stated publicly today that it would be wrong for an emergency service to feel obliged to take industrial action to secure a pay agreement? The federation has not expressed any view on what should be the appropriate level of pay for ambulance men and women.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I tell him and the Police Federation that I contemplate the use of the police to maintain the ambulance service only with the greatest reluctance. They are being diverted from other tasks. They are not as well trained as the ambulance men

857
and they cannot provide as good a service as that which could be performed by the accident and emergency service, although they all do their manful best. I can assure my hon. Friend and the federation that the Government will use policemen or, if necessary, military personnel only to protect the life and limb of citizens at risk. There is no question of our using the police force or the armed forces for the purpose of strike breaking. To return to the industrial dispute, which I think should be settled, the action taken by the unions should at the very least not threaten life and limb by withdrawing the accident and emergency services.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: Only this afternoon I was looking at the British Empire medal that was awarded to Mr. Brian Murray, the ambulance man who dragged the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) from the Grand hotel at Brighton. Mr. Murray is on hunger strike for 60 hours on the embankment further up the river from this place in protest at the way in which he, as an ambulance man, is being treated by the Government. Is it not a disgrace that brave people such as Mr. Murray should be humiliated and insulted by the Government, who are intent on cutting their pay?
Mr. Clarke: I accept entirely that the ambulance service carries out its duties conscientiously and well and that the performance of the service in recent tragedies of all sorts has been exemplary. Indeed, it is almost the only emergency service in the country that has not come in for any criticism, directly or indirectly, for its response to industrial action. Having said that, the proper level of pay for ambulance men should be settled by a process of civilised negotiation, which has worked for many years in the Whitley council and which produced a result this year which was commended to Mr. Murray and his colleagues by the negotiators who were responsible for it. It is a great pity that he feels obliged thereafter to take part in a hunger strike. It is a gesture, but it does not seem to be frightfully relevant to the issues in question. It is wholly undesirable that the men in London—Mr. Murray does not work in London—should suddenly introduce 14 extraordinary points, which include some that put the lives of Londoners at risk.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the negotiating procedure for the salaries of ambulance men has not yet been exhausted? Surely each ambulance man should reflect to himself that in not returning to negotiation and by taking the present action he is potentially harming the people of London, and that he should return to work and carry out his duties.
Mr. Clarke: The Whitley council management side takes the view that the negotiations were never completed in the Whitley council. It began to increase its offer to the London men after the first ballot of the members of the unions. It increased the London men's offer to 9·3 per cent. There has been a remarkable change of attitude on the part of union leaders between the spring or summer of this year and now. In my opinion, that has far more to do with the political climate than with differences in negotiating a proper level of pay for ambulance men for the next year or two.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Secretary of State has said repeatedly in a number of answers that the ambulance men should return to a negotiation. Is there more money on the table to increase the core pay offer? Is he saying that potentially more money is on the table?
Mr. Clarke: I shall repeat to the best of my recollection what Mr. Duncan Nichol has said. He has talked about the possibility of a two-year deal that would involve bringing some more money forward from the second year. He has talked about the possibility of local flexibility to deal with parts of the country where there are local recruitment and retention problems. He has talked about a review of the 1986 deal with the trade unions, which was advantageous to ambulance men but which is now giving rise to arguments about the way in which overtime is calculated.
In advance of the unions either modifying their claim one iota or agreeing to return to the negotiating table, it seems that Duncan Nichol, the chief executive of the Health Service, has put forward several propositions. Unfortunately, the unions prefer their 14 points and getting the police on to the streets to do their work.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are two facts on which any responsible trade unionist should quietly reflect? The first is that the central complaint of the ambulance staff is that they should have comparability with the police force and the fire brigade. That has been examined by an independent tribunal—the Clegg commission—and rejected. Secondly, all the National Health Service staff have their pay and conditions regarded by the Whitley council, and 94 per cent. of them have settled within the council this year. It seems extraordinary that when one group seeks to break that negotiating tradition the Opposition should rush immediately to its aid rather than support the established machine which has existed for a considerable time to settle pay and conditions in the NHS. Is not the bottom line in the dispute that we can see things becoming only worse until the ambulance staff go back to the Whitley council and start, with the NHS management team, to find a way out of the dispute through the proper and accepted negotiating machinery?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. Comparability with firemen and the police has been examined by successive Governments and rejected. The concept was examined by the Clegg commission and rejected. The ambulance men do not claim parity with the police, and to the best of my knowledge and recollection they have never done so. They are claiming that they should be compared with fifth-year firefighters, who happen to be a convenient grade for the purpose of getting the extra money that they are aiming at this year, which is 11·5 per cent. Review bodies are urged upon me. The nurses have a review body, and they took 6·8 per cent. last year. The Army has a review body, and it took 6·8 per cent. last year. The 6·5 per cent. that is on offer is not a million miles away from those settlements, but that is not what the unions are after. They are after a double-figure pay settlement as a reward for industrial action. They should modify what they say because, as my hon. Friend has said, 95 per cent. of the Health Service staff have already settled for about 6·5 per cent.
Mr. Robin Cook: Given the Secretary of State's replies to some of my hon. Friends' questions, may I help him to get it right on the use of radiophones? The only restriction in the 14 points on the use of radiophones is their use for non-emergency calls. There is no restriction in the 14 points—there never has been—on the use of radiophones to respond to accidents and emergencies. In the light of that clear position on the 14 points, how can the right hon. and learned Gentleman possibly use that as his strongest example of why it is necessary to suspend the entire accident and emergency service and bring in the Army?
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is not describing accurately the restrictions that are being placed on the use of radiophones. If a radiophone is not being used normally, it is not possible to control an accident and emergency service. The unions are not prepared to use the system normally so that full communications are established between control and ambulance drivers.
The second key point is crewing up, which we covered last week. As I understand it, there are also foolish points about not collecting casualties because there are no red blankets. I am not aware yet that the unions are insisting upon that. It is absurd for the unions and their supporters to say, "We are prepared to operate the accident and emergency service" and then to say, "But there are these new conditions that we wish to apply to the way in which it should be operated." I know that the management of the service does not want to use the police or the Army any more than I do. It has called on us for assistance only because it cannot operate an accident and emergency service unless the unions agree to tell their men to operate it normally.

T. W. Kempton
4.59 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: 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 announcement late yesterday evening that T. W. Kempton has gone into receivership."
T. W. Kempton was one of the largest textile firms in the city of Leicester and one of the most prominent in the country. It had a turnover of £25 million a year. The news that the firm has gone into receivership is a bitter blow to its 840 employees, many of whom live in my constituency, and a shock to the textile industry. Here is a firm which only six years ago received a Queen's award for export achievement.
There is widespread agreement, and the chairman, Mr. Russell Kempton, confirmed to me today, that the main reasons for the horrifying closure are increasing levels of imports and high interest rates. In the first half of this year, our trade deficit for textiles and clothing was £1,840 million, £140 million higher than the previous year. Job losses have been at an all-time high since last summer. The industry has lost 10,000 jobs. Since January 1988, 22 textile firms in Leicestershire have either closed completely or announced partial redundancies, amounting to a total loss of 2,800 jobs, or 5 per cent. of the entire county's work force.
Gentex, Ladies Pride, Corah, Harold Ingram, Chilprufe and Leslie Wise are just some of the names on the tombstones in the ever-filling graveyard of the textiles industry. I and other hon. Members who represent constituencies with textile interests have frequently urged the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to act to prevent this haemorrhaging. He states repeatedly that, in order to act against the surge of imports from the far east, he must have proof that damage has been done to our industry. The closure of T. W. Kempton is the proof that he needs. It is the latest in a long line of firms that have bitten the dust, destroyed by unfair competition and prohibitive tariffs imposed on exports from the United Kingdom. Only by acting decisively in the interests of our textile industry can the decline be prevented.
I ask the Department of Trade and Industry to assist the company in whatever way it can to preserve employment in Leicester. I ask the Secretary of State to meet the leaders of both sides of the industry to discuss the matter with urgency. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give me leave to move the Adjournment of the House so that we can discuss fully recent serious developments in the textile industry.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) 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 he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement late yesterday evening that T. W. Kempton has gone into receivership."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20 I have to announce my decision without giving reasons to the House. I listened with care to what the hon. Member said. As he knows, I have to decide whether his application comes within the Standing Order and, if so, whether a

861
debate on the matter should be given priority over the business already arranged for this evening or tomorrow. In this case, the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order. I regret that I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
5.3 pm
Mr. Eric Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is now one and a half hours since the Prime Minister left the Chamber. I wanted to raise a point of order about something that the Prime Minister said at Question Time, but I could not do so because of a ruling that you made. The Prime Minister is probably on her way to America or Russia by now. It is absurd that I can raise my point of order only now, one and a half hours after the issue should have been raised.
I ask you to reconsider carefully your ruling. You accepted a point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). I do not disagree with that, because it was on a vital matter. My point of order is that the Prime Minister equated people in CND with Pol Pot. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) may laugh, but it is not funny to suggest that hon. Members who believe in CND are murderers or to compare them with Pol Pot and his despicable gang. The matter should have been dealt with there and then but, because of your ruling, only now, one and a half hours later, do I have an opportunity to raise it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should reflect carefully on what he has just said. At the beginning, he stated that he would have liked to raise a matter with the Prime Minister or about her comments at Question Time.
Mr.Heffer: That is not what I said in my point of order.
Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Member to look in Hansard tomorrow at what he said. A point of order must relate to order in the Chamber. I cannot be held responsible for what the Prime Minister says, provided that she is in order. What she says is her own responsibility. As the House knows, points of order are matters on which the Speaker can adjudicate and I cannot adjudicate on whether the Prime Minister's comments are right or wrong. If I allowed what the hon. Member suggests, we should have a whole rash of points of order arising out of Question Time, which would disfigure the proceedings and delay subsequent business. The matter that the hon. Member raises is not a point of order for me.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall hear the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), because it is important to clear up the matter.
Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you now ruling that hon. Members on either side can say just about anything about citizens for whom you are responsible? We are all responsible to the people who elect us to the House. Are you now saying that it does not matter what the Prime Minister or any other individual says in the House about people, even if it is a downright lie, and that we cannot stand up to defend our people?
Mr. Speaker: I am saying to the hon. Member and to the House that in this place we have total freedom of speech, unless it reflects upon another hon. Member.
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that last week you said:
"It is not in order to use House of Commons stationery for party-political purposes."—[Official Report, 1 November 1989; Vol. 159, c. 321.]
I have to hand a House of Commons franked envelope. There is nothing remarkable about that. We use them every day to write to our constituents about matters which concern them. Unfortunately, this envelope, franked and paid for by the taxpayers, was used to send out minutes to members of Redcar constituency Labour party. Will you consider sending a bill to Redcar Labour club, as, among others, it is—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can give the hon. Member guidance. This matter was raised last week about other similar episodes. Will he kindly send the envelope to the Services Select Committee, which is already dealing with two other cases and which, I am sure, will wish to deal with that matter too?
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that you were responsible for the order of the House. This afternoon, a statement was made which related to the London area, for which you allowed one hour. You called mainly London Members. The statement was not issued until the moment when the Secretary of State rose to speak, so no one could read it in depth beforehand or ask sensible questions on it. The whole procedure was a farce. You allowed only half an hour on the ambulance dispute, which relates to the whole country, and you stopped only seven Members who were seeking to catch your eye—of whom I was one—from asking a question. Hon. Members from the north of England in particular were not called to speak about the ambulance dispute. One would have thought that it was a private dispute occurring only in London. Will you consider the way in which you allocate time to ensure that hon. Members from constituencies outside London catch your eye?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is the first time that I have agreed with the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). I have spent most of my time shouting and bawling from one side to the other—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not relish it.
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member for Langbaurgh is right. I am not against spending an hour on the train
864
inquiry statement, and nor am I against spending an hour on the ambulance dispute statement. However, Mr. Speaker, you called hon. Members who had been called previously. There have been several statements on the ambulance dispute and some hon. Members have never been called—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not yet Mr. Speaker. I know that he was an experienced chairman and I often accept—
Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend was very good.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, indeed the hon. Gentleman was a very good chairman. I was often grateful for his advice.
I must say to both the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and the hon. Member for Bolsover that I have to make a balanced judgment—
Mr. Skinner: You have not been very good at it lately.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had better calculate what he is saying.
Mr. Skinner: I have done.
Mr. Speaker: I must tell the hon. Member for Langbaurgh, who raised the point, that I allowed the first statement to continue because I was anxious to ensure that those hon. Members whose constituents had suffered as a result of that sad train accident were called to say something about the report. I hope that the House will not consider that to be wrong.
There was a private notice question yesterday about the ambulance dispute. If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully today, he would have heard the Secretary of State say that the troops are on alert in London, not elsewhere in the country. Perhaps there will be other occasions when this matter is before us—I hope not—but then I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

BILL PRESENTED
  PATIENTS' CHARTER
  Mr. Charles Kennedy presented a Bill to establish certain rights for people in need of health care, and to promote the involvement of patients in decision-making within the National Health Service: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 November and to be printed. [Bill 217.]

  Toxic and Hazardous Substances (Miscellaneous Provisions)
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) please sit down?
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Yes, I will do.
  Mr. McCartney: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect the general public in the purchase and application of toxic and hazardous substances within the home environment; to provide a code of conduct for use by consumers and contractors; to set up a register of proscribed substances; and for other purposes.
  I am the chair of the all-party home safety group which campaigns in the House on a wide range of issues on behalf of consumers and workers. We believe in the right to purchase goods that do not poison, cut, gas, electrocute, burn, maim or kill, and in the right of workers to be employed in the safest possible environment.
  The Bill belongs to a family of measures that the group has been promoting, including a successful campaign to ban dangerous foam furniture, inflammable fabrics, dangerous nursery furniture, the introduction of smoke alarms and the banning of unsafe glass products in the home. We must pay tribute to the London hazards centre for the campaign, and especially to Hugh MacGrillen and his team.
  The Bill is a solemn and heartfelt tribute to the victims of toxic and hazardous substances, and the list is endless and growing. It is a poignant reminder to the families of Eric Riley—who, in the words of his wife Ann, was murdered by Lindane; to Keith Pritchett, killed by leukaemia while working for Cuprinol; David Rea, a Rentokil sprayer who is afflicted by leukaemia and is currently in a very serious condition; and to a little child, Llwyd Nicholes, who contracted aplastic anaemia following Rentokil's woodworm treatment to his family home. Some 300 families in the United Kingdom—the list is growing weekly—5,500 in West Germany and thousands more worldwide have been affected by dangerous and toxic substances in the home environment. This Bill is a sign to those families that the fight for justice will continue until such products are banned from the market place.
  How can it be that a man or a woman working in industry, commerce or the public service is, in theory, protected from the harmful effects of dangerous and hazardous substances by the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988, but can leave his or her employment and go into a do-it-yourself store, a chemist or a local garage, or use Yellow Pages and legally purchase a material or substance that can damage the brain, eyes, skin, lungs, liver, kidneys or reproductive organs, and can, in increasing instances, kill?
  What other country in the world would treat its children in the way that Britain does? Sheep dip containing Lindane cannot be used in Britain; to do so would be a criminal offence because of its toxicity. Yet Lindane can be administered legally through the prescription service—it is recommended by the National Health Service for use in children's shampoo for the treatment of head lice. It is appalling to think that that substance cannot be used in
  866
  sheep dip because of its toxicity, but it can be used on the heads of little children. The shampoos are sold under the trade names of Lorexane and Quellada. I urge the Minister seriously to consider that policy.
  The attitude of the manufacturers and suppliers of toxic chemicals is deplorable. They make no effort to establish whether their products are safe. They attempt to discount evidence of toxic effects and they make very little effort to inform the public of the possible consequences of using their chemicals. For example, Peter Bateman—the public relations director of Rentokil—has described Lindane as a life-saving chemical, despite all the evidence of its toxic properties. I ask Mr. Bateman to stop and think for a moment about Ann and Eric Riley. Eric was exposed to Lindane and PCP—pentachlorophenol—in January 1987. He rapidly developed lethargy, depression, pain in the throat and stomach and other symptoms. Eric had an epileptic fit in April 1987 and suffered memory loss and lack of co-ordination. He never fully recovered his health. He had a further fit in January 1988, as a result of which he drowned in the family bath—killed by Lindane.
  Mr. Bateman should also think about the grandmother in Skipton who wrote to me only this week. Following an advertisement on Yorkshire Television, she bought a product called Gammexene, which contained Lindane, to dust the tomato plants in her greenhouse. She developed nausea, dizziness, irritation of the eyes, nose and throat and muscular spasms in her legs that persisted for some months. Her grandchildren now refuse to kiss her because they complain that she has been poisoned.
  Cuprinol, a company that has advertised extensively on television, has been worried for some time that it has been poisoning its own work force. There are 23 outstanding worker claims against the company. The Transport and General Workers Union is more than concerned about the company and its activities and the risks of Cuprinol's hazardous products. The company has chosen to deny publicly the appalling elects of Lindane, TBTO—tributyl tin oxide—and PCPs, yet secretly it has been withdrawing Lindane from its lethal concoctions. If that is the case, why does it not withdraw old stocks from its suppliers? Will it destroy those stocks and issue a warning to consumers not to purchase products containing Lindane produced prior to the date that the substance was removed from the production process? Will it now accept liability for the damage already done to its customers and its work force?
  The performance of contractors that use chemicals is even worse. A survey in the Building Trades Journal of 14 specialists in timber treatments reported staggering incompetence. An editorial in the British Journal of Industrial Medicine summed it up:
  "Modern management has no incentive for the identification of so far unknown or unproved risk."
  Perhaps more importantly, there are no penalties for failing to identify risk. In general, the public have no protection against toxic materials and their use by incompetent or unscrupulous operators.
  The complacent attitude of the authorities beggars belief. Only a few months ago at the Dispatch Box the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), said that he did not believe that Lindane and other chemicals were dangerous. Yet that was at a time when the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had already banned the use of Lindane in sheep dip. On 10 July, the Health and Safety Executive, in a private meeting with

  867
  industry, said that there were problems with the public perception of attitudes towards the introduction and continuation of hazardous substances in the home environment. The HSE pleaded with industry to introduce a system of advice and information leaflets to the public.
  That information is to be delayed until at least July 1990 because, in the words of minute No. 5, the Nationwide Association of Preserving Specialists reserved its judgment on this matter. Even in private, the industry was not prepared to admit that things were going wrong and that serious damage was being done to the health of many British people.
  The situation is even worse. At present, the regulations are not working effectively. For example, a company called Mould Growth Consultants Limited is selling a product called Wintox to local authorities, and it has been established today that it has never received approval from the Health and Safety Executive or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Those local authorities currently negotiating with that company should withdraw immediately until the company receives approval from the Health and Safety Executive, or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That should be treated as a matter of urgency.
  The Bill would give members of the public the right to information. It would establish a regulatory authority to license particular chemicals or processes for domestic use, a code of practice for the protection of consumers against unscrupulous manufacturers, suppliers and contractors and a register of harmful substances, including a proscribed list.
  The House should be asking the Government immediately to ban PCPs and Lindane, to phase out organic insecticides and arsenic formulations and to phase in inorganic hone compounds, to rewrite British standards and to give the Health and Safety Executive a greater role. Without that minimal action, deaths in Britain will continue while wood preservative and chemical companies are happy to put profits before the lives of many working people. That private scandal should be exposed and ended forthwith.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Mike Watson, Mr. Frank Doran, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Martyn Jones, Mr. Keith Bradley, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Thomas McAvoy, Mr. John Battle, Mr. Gerry Steinberg and Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

  TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)
  Mr. Ian McCartney accordingly presented a Bill to protect the general public in the purchase and application of toxic and hazardous substances within the home environment; to provide a code of conduct for use by consumers and contractors; to set up a register of proscribed substances; and for other purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 216.]
Orders of the Day

  Local Government and Housing Bill
  [SECOND DAY]
  Lords amendments further considered.

Clause 71

  DUTY TO KEEP HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT
  Lords amendment: No. 112, in page 78, line 8, after "1926" insert—
  "(dd) any property which—

  (a) with the consent of the Secretary of State given under section 417(1) of the Housing Act 1985;

  (b) with the consent of a Minister given under section 50(1)(e) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958; or

  (c) by virtue of section 50(2) of that Act (houses vesting in local authority on default of another person)

  was brought within the corresponding account kept under Part XIII of the Housing Act 1985 for years beginning before 1st April 1990;"
  5.22 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment Nos. 113 to 118, 119 and amendments (a) to (f), and Lords amendments Nos. 120 to 138, 318 to 327.
  Mr. Chope: Part VI and schedule 4 are concerned with revenue finance for local authority housing. It might help the House in its consideration of the various provisions if I set out some of the background and outline our objectives.
  The House may know that part VI encapsulates the principles that underlie the Bill—accountability, efficiency, fairness and targeting. The present financial framework in which authorities provide their housing service gives insufficient incentives for efficiency, does not make the best use of public resources, and does not give council tenants a clear view of what their accommodation and the housing service are really worth. Local authorities are required to account for their day-to-day expenditure and income on council housing separately, in the housing revenue account, but they can transfer money freely between their housing revenue account and the rest of their general rate fund. In other words, they can use ratepayers' money to subsidise the housing service, or conversely use surpluses from the housing revenue account to pay for non-housing services. That distorts accountability to tenants and ratepayers, and engenders inefficiency.
  The discretion to move resources in and out of the housing revenue account makes it difficult to ensure that the available Exchequer subsidies to council housing are directed to those authorities which most need them. The Government provide about £3 billion of subsidies in support of expenditure on the housing revenue account, but that money is paid through three separate channels

  869
  —housing subsidy, rent rebate subsidy, and an element of rate support grant in support of contributions from the rate fund.
  Anomalies are almost bound to result from such a system. Some authorities which receive those subsidies can make surpluses which they can use outside the housing revenue account, so Exchequer money for council housing is used for other purposes. The other side of the coin is that fewer resources are then available to target on authorities which need extra help with their housing expenditure.
  One further consequence of the present financial framework is that the pattern of council rents around the country does not reflect the variation in the value of council housing or the standard of service provided by different councils in different parts of the country. Rents are based instead on historic values. Council tenants cannot clearly see what their accommodation is worth or whether they are receiving an efficient service, and they are not given the signals that they need to exercise freely the choices we have made available in the housing market.
  In that context, we have established our new financial regime, which has three objectives—to tighten the financial discipline of local authorities in the provision of the housing service; to target taxpayer subsidies more effectively; and to encourage more sensible, realistic council rents, which come to reflect the pattern in the value of housing around the country. Those objectives are set in the context of the total level of housing revenue account subsidy, remaining roughly at this year's level—£3 billion per annum.
  There are two main elements of the new regime. First, housing revenue accounts will be ring-fenced from the rest of the authorities' funds, preventing ratepayers' money from being used as a discretionary subsidy to council housing, and restricting the use of housing surpluses outside the account.
  Secondly, the three existing sources of Exchequer subsidy will be combined to prevent a single housing revenue account subsidy, paid where on our assumptions authorities need additional help to balance the ring-fenced account. In combination, those two elements will help us to achieve our three objectives.
  Mr. Martin Redmond: Is it right that private owners who contribute nothing via their rates should be on bungalow waiting lists? A senior citizen has a right to go on the senior citizen list and to be provided with accommodation, but ring fencing makes it extremely difficult for all local authority residents to be treated fairly.
  Mr. Chope: I have to disagree. There will not be any inequalities under the new system. There are inequalities under the existing system. It is unreasonable that those who are still waiting for council housing should be contributing, through their rate bills, to the existing council housing revenue account which is there for the benefit of existing tenants. As soon as people on the waiting list become tenants, they will be paying rents which go into the housing revenue account.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister agree that some authorities have not used the rate fund for years to subsidise their council house rents, and that council tenants are paying taxes to subsidise mortgage interest relief?
  Mr. Chope: I do not accept that either. The pattern of historic costs of council housing varies significantly. Some housing estates were built largely in the 1930s, and other councils have a majority of estates built in the 1960s and 1970s, so they have higher historic costs. But it is unreasonable that people, just because they are living in properties built in the 1930s, should enjoy lower rents than people living in properties which are more modern. The essence of our proposals is to make the regime much fairer and more equitable.
  The majority of the Lords amendments are technical, designed to clarify the accounting treatment of various items within the housing revenue account. A group of amendments to clause 71 and schedule 4 was intended to clear up an anomaly concerning property that is disposed of. The amendments reflect the common-sense view that such property should no longer be counted as housing revenue account property.
  5.30 pm
  Amendments were also made to clause 78, and to the schedule dealing with the way in which rent rebates are shown in the account, and providing for the cost of discretionary extensions made by the authority to the housing benefit system. That group took in the change made in Commons Committee at the instigation of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) regarding rebates for war widows and the war disabled.
  There were also amendments to the list, in schedule 4, of permitted debits and credits to the account, regarding the relationship between the account and its sub-account, the housing repairs account. Amendments were also made to correct obvious omissions, providing specifically for expenditure from revenue resources on housing capital works, and funds to cover rent arrears.
  Two important groups of amendments were made in Committee in another place, both of which were foreshadowed on Report in this House. The first concerns the new residual debt subsidy, or RDS. The RDS provisions in clauses 79 to 81 were introduced to clear up some of the anomalies in the present accounting and subsidy arrangements, which exist when large amounts of an authority's housing stock are disposed of. RDS was to be payable to authorities that disposed of stock for which the receipt did not cover the outstanding debt.
  Following development of our proposals on housing revenue account subsidy, and consultation with local authorities and the local authority associations, my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State announced our conclusion that a separate residual debt subsidy would be needed only for the current year, 1989–90, and only in the case of authorities not in receipt of main housing subsidy. Amendments Nos. 121 to 128 amend the provisions to give effect to that change in approach.
  The second major amendment to this part of the Bill is amendment No. 119, which is intended to ensure that provisions dealing with the calculation of the main housing revenue account subsidy are in line with our stated policy. The first part concerns the Secretary of State's powers to make assumptions for subsidy purposes about credits or debits in the housing revenue account. Housing revenue account subsidy is to be paid to enable an authority to balance its housing revenue account on certain assumptions about its expenditure and income. The main such assumptions concern the level of rents and expenditure on management and maintenance of the

  871
  housing stock. My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State announced on Report our intentions regarding council house rents.
  Mr. Clive Soley: In case any hon. Member is not clear on this, may I make it clear that the assumption is intended to give the Government an opportunity to set rent levels that they believe should be set throughout the country?
  Mr. Chope: Not at all. The Government are saying loud and clear that it will still be for individual local authorities to decide rent levels. We are also saying, however, that there should be a fairer system of subsidy, and the new system will be much fairer than the existing one.
  Mr. Keith Bradley: The Minister has said that he intends to clarify the assumptions. A letter from his predecessor, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), to Manchester city council states:
  "To the extent that the repairs capitalised were of a normal day-to-day nature, this should be reflected progressively in the M and M allowance … in the new HRA Subsidy."
  Following yet another change by the Department of the Environment, Manchester, for example, will lose £20 million in subsidy because of the change in treatment of capitalised repairs. That means that rents will have to rise by £10·50 just to stand still. Can the Minister explain why his Department continually changes the subsidy rules, why capitalised repairs are being treated differently and why commitments given by his predecessor have been changed, to the detriment of Manchester's rentpayers?
  Mr. Chope: I was intending to deal specifically with capitalised repairs when we reached an amendment on the subject tabled by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). Let me say to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), however, that, if he reads the consultation document, he will see that Manchester benefits greatly from the new system. Under our proposed system, it is deemed to need the minimum increase of 95p a week, whereas, under the existing system, this year's assumed increase is £1·95 a week.
  I shall deal with the issue of capitalised repairs in more detail later. The main point is, however, that Manchester has been spending a good deal on capitalised repairs that were not truly capitalised: in other words, it was spending money on decorating and routine maintenance that no sensible person would regard as expenditure that could properly be capitalised. If Manchester continues to do that, it will not be able to use capital moneys for such purposes. Under the new system, however, it will be able to capitalise genuine capital repairs, as it has been able to do in the past.
  Mr. Soley: The Minister has confirmed what I said a few moments ago: in effect, the Government will determine rent levels. As is known by every Conservative councillor in the Association of District Councils, and by every Labour councillor throughout the land, the Minister is deciding—to use his words—what is sensible. Unfortunately, he is the only person who agrees with his definition of "sensible"; none of the Conservative or Labour councillors in the ADC agrees with it. Why is the Minister the only sensible person around?
  Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for accepting that I am sensible, but I do not regard myself as
  872
  the only person to take what I consider the sensible view that capital moneys should not be spent on routine house decoration, and that ordinary revenue income should be used for that kind of revenue expenditure. My view is that capital expenditure should be incurred on capital assets: that means truly capitalised repairs that are in the nature of either major long-term maintenance that would probably be incurred only every 30 years, or other capital improvements.
  That, I think, is the view that most accountants would advise us to take, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with it. I know that his authority in Hammersmith has interpreted "capital repairs" very liberally. My Labour-controlled authority in Southampton, however, has taken my view, that it would be wrong to incur capital expenditure on what should normally be revenue items.
  Mr. Soley: I thank the Minister for giving way again: he is very generous with his time.
  Is it not a fact that almost all industries would think it appropriate to use capital moneys for revenue purposes at times? If the Minister sold his house and moved into a cheaper one, he might well use some of the capital accumulated from the sale to repair and renovate the new house. That is a very normal thing to do. In the words of the Prime Minister, it is the normal everyday economics of the family.
  Mr. Chope: No, it is not. I think that responsible authorities would say that, when public money is involved, existing tenants should pay for existing decoration carried out in their flats and houses, and that the cost should not be a burden on successive generations. For that is effectively what is happening: if capital moneys are used to carry out today's routine decoration, debt will be incurred on which interest must be paid by generations of successor tenants.
  Mr. Soley: The Minister has just referred to "any responsible authority." Does he therefore think that the Association of District Councils, which agrees with me, not with him, is irresponsible?
  Mr. Chope: If and in so far as authorities have used capital moneys for revenue purposes in the way that I have described, I would say that that was ill advised. It will certainly not be possible to do that under the new system.
  Mr. Soley: That is the Minister's view.
  Mr. Chope: Yes. In my view, it is irresponsible. That is the view of many people in local government.
  Mr. Robert Litherland: Manchester found that it was more economical to have programmed repairs—for example, the replacement of rotting window frames and the repainting of houses on a massive estate programme. Would that come under the heading of capital expenditure?
  Mr. Chope: What could be described as the cyclical painting of estates every three, five or seven years, depending on the area, is an ordinary revenue item. If one wanted to replace windows by means of a major replacement programme which would only be necessary every 20 or 30 years, that would be a legitimate item to

  873
  capitalise. That is the distinction to be drawn between ordinary expenditure items and items that can properly be capitalised and upon which capital resources can be spent.
  Under the rent guideline system that we are introducing, we start by assuming a national total of rent income for the year. Our proposal for next year is that this should reflect an increase of 5 per cent. in real terms, plus 5 per cent. for inflation. That is exactly the same increase as we have assumed in the existing subsidy system for each of the last two years.
  The net result of the rent proposals is that the proposed guideline increase is nowhere less than 95p and nowhere more than £4·50. Of 366 local housing authorities in England, 66 receive the maximum guideline increase, 170 receive the minimum increase and the remaining 130 fall somewhere between the two. For almost one half of all local authorities, there will be a guideline rent increase of less than the national inflation figure. I am prepared to guarantee that that is a figure and a fact to which Opposition Members will not draw attention.
  The proposals are fair and reasonable. They will start the process of encouraging a more logical pattern of rents which will reflect the true variation in the valuation of property. They will also ensure that rents do not move out of the reach of ordinary people. They certainly do not reflect the dramatic claims made by the Opposition at Report.
  While discussing the subsidy calculation and the proposals made on 23 October, it might be helpful if I were to say a few words about the other main assumption in the subsidy calculation—the allowance that we shall be making for expenditure on management and the maintenance of the stock. Our proposed assumption is that each authority will increase its spending by 5 per cent. to take account of inflation, plus an increase of 3 per cent. in real terms. That should enable all authorities to provide a good standard of day-to-day maintenance. The proposal, as with all the other elements of subsidy, is now open to consultation. The authorities have until 4 December to submit their comments.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Soley: My immediate response is that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. I have never before heard such an incredibly blind view of the housing crisis, not least the crisis over rents. The Minister knows that what he has said about rents is only a very small part of the picture. Rents will increase dramatically.
  The Government have not referred to the extent of the housing crisis which affects local authority tenants, housing association tenants and private tenants. This wide-ranging group of amendments provides us with an opportunity to debate both the housing revenue account and homelessness. Some local authorities will not be required to keep a housing revenue account, which raises the issue of what will happen to the homeless. The amendments also provide us with an opportunity to discuss rent arrears and rent levels.
  One would have thought, from what the Minister said, that there is no problem. The reason that I was so anxious to intervene during his speech was to use for his benefit the Association of District Councils' evidence. That is not a Labour-controlled organisation; it is almost solidly
  874
  Conservative controlled. When I spoke at a conference of the association in the Minister's constituency, Southampton, I received overwhelming support from Conservative councillors when I said that in the Labour party's view the Secretary of State does not have the right to take away the money that they have gained from capital receipts—from selling council houses—and make them use it to repay debts, although they want to use it to repair, renovate and rebuild the housing stock. I was cheered when I said that, so I say to the Minister, simply in terms of his own political survival, that he ought to be wondering why it is that he is so totally isolated and why it is that he is the only one who knows what a sensible rent is.
  The Government have consistently refused to tell us what a fair rent is. At first they referred constantly to market rents, but when market rents became a little embarrassing, because they were increasing so rapidly, we began to hear about affordable rents and low rents. Nowhere have the Government referred to what they think rent levels should be in the local authority sector, the housing association sector or the private sector. Such is the extent of the housing crisis that the Government cannot bring themselves to face either the purchase sector problem or the rented sector problem.
  That is why the Minister who, we are told, is responsible for housing, although I sometimes doubt it—the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—chose not to speak about mortgage interest rate rises when he addressed his own party conference. Mortgage interest rates have no effect, apparently, on the housing problem, yet we know that they are hitting people badly if they are trying to buy for the first time or if they are trying to sell and buy another house. They are also having a grossly distorting effect on the housing market because of the combination of house price inflation over a number of years—which will resume again in due course—and a distorted subsidy system, brought about by the cut in subsidy to the rented sector. It is that which has created the chaos that the Government have inherited.
  As there is now a housing crisis, the Government have decided that they had better not have a Minister for Housing. We were told initially that the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe was going to be the Minister for Housing. Then we discovered that he was in charge of water privatisation. However, we were told that when he had finished privatising water he would deal with housing. When the hon. and learned Gentleman has finished with water and deals with housing, which presumably will be some time in the new year, what the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) will know for sure is that his position is unassailable. He will no longer be what he is supposed to be now, I assume—the Minister for Housing, although he never actually confesses to being the Minister for Housing.
  Mr. John Battle: Will the real Minister for Housing stand up?
  Mr. Soley: Yes, will he do so? In a way it is farcical, but really it is very serious. The major housing crisis that we face is due to a lack of affordable accommodation either for rent or for sale in both urban and rural areas, but we do not have a Minister for Housing to deal with it. There is not even a recognition of the problem.
  Mr. George Howarth: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the new Ministers and welcoming them to their various responsibilities? Will he also point out to them that they are respectively the twelfth and thirteenth holders of those posts since 1979? Will my hon. Friend also join me in saying that if we hold a similar debate on a similar Bill in 12 months time, it is almost certain that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) and the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) will not be sitting on the Government Front Bench?
  Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is quite right. A number of the Ministers who passed through while I have been doing this job were in post for only 12 months. To be fair, one of the better Ministers held his post for only 12 months. Because he realised the seriousness of the problem and decided to do something about it, he was moved.
  To put the problem in context, rural areas of England which did not have a housing problem before now have one. Sons and daughters of people who live in good housing in villages in the south of England suddenly find that they cannot afford to buy or rent. People who have lived in the area for a long time, the people who drive the trains, teach in the schools or nurse in the local hospitals cannot afford to buy or rent. House price inflation has pushed house prices out of their range, and rents are going up to market levels and are therefore unaffordable. In Dorset, an average family house costs about £90,000, a market rent is approximately £100 a week and the average male unskilled wage in that area is £90 per week. It is impossible to square the equation.
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman referred particularly to the south, but the problem is just as bad in many parts of the north. In my constituency of High Peak there are many villages where families who have lived there for many generations can no longer afford to buy or rent. In most of the villages and towns there is a desperate shortage of rented accommodation and council housing and there are no private-sector houses that ordinary people can afford.
  Mr. Soley: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. I am not saying that the problem occurs only in the south, but the picture is more extreme in the south because house price inflation has had a much more dramatic effect there, for many reasons of which we are all aware. But the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that in some areas of Yorkshire the figures are similar to those in the south, and that must apply to many other areas.
  In addition to that general pain is something that I never thought I would live to see in my own country—teenage children sitting in our streets with cardboard signs saying, "Homeless and hungry". They are under 18 and they have nowhere to go. To have a Minister, whether or not he is responsible for housing, who is so blind to that appalling problem that he can introduce a Bill that not only does nothing about it, but because of certain conditions will prevent local authorities from doing something about it, is absolutely disgraceful. I cannot face seeing many more youngsters sitting homeless and hungry in the street.
  There was a time when one did not give money to people who were begging because one knew that there was a support system. One could stop and talk to them and persuade them to go to their local DSS office or to
  876
  emergency night shelters. During the last years of the Labour Government and in the early 1980s, even in London one could always get someone a roof over their head. Nowadays one cannot do that. That is why increasing numbers of the public, myself included, give money without asking questions because the housing crisis is so desperate. It is one of the worst examples of the typical Tory picture of private affluence and public squalor. Sadly, that public squalor is endured by the most vulnerable people. The Centre Point report shows that about one third of those youngsters have come out of care—the care that we operate in the Dickensian Conservative 1980s where apparently it is all right to leave kids out in the streets when they are no longer the responsibility of the local authority. They drift around and are likely to be drawn into crime, drug abuse and alcohol abuse which are strongly associated with homelessness.
  Rent levels are central to much of our debate. The Government should face many of the problems concerning rent. They admit that they are trying to push up council rents, although they argue about how fast and how far. However, they rarely recognise or admit that they have dramatically pushed up housing association and private sector rents, so there is no escape. Some Conservative and other councils consider that if they transfer council housing to housing associations or private landlords somehow people will be safeguarded from rent increases. That is not true. Last year housing association rents increased by an average of 24 per cent. Market rents in the private sector are leaping ahead to such an extent that it is difficult to predict how high they will rise. My judgment is that the market rate will approximate towards what the property would fetch if it were sold and the owner invested the money and took a return on it. The interest rate that they would get would be roughly the market rent. That is why market rents are going through the roof.
  Just to make that appalling picture worse, the Government have introduced capital value rents. On 1 April 1990 the Government will bring in a new system of calculating rates based on the capital value of the property. The Ministers occasionally say that Labour's alternative to the poll tax includes an element of capital values. Our system would be fully rebatable, but there is no rebate on the capital value basis that they are using to set rent levels.
  Mr. Chope: To bring the debate closer to the hon. Gentleman's home territory, does he support and approve of the rent policy in the Labour-controlled London borough of Hammersmith, where the average rent last year was £35·8 and where there has already been an increase this year far in excess of those prevailing in other local authority areas? Does he recognise that, whatever the level of rent, people are eligible for rent rebates? Under the existing system and under the new system there will be no alteration in rent rebate entitlements.
  Mr. Soley: I agree entirely with my council when it says that it is being forced to increase rents by a Government who have progressively cut the money that goes to every local authority, regardless of whether it is controlled by the Labour party, the Tory party, the Liberal party or anything else. That is what is forcing up rents. There is always a case for increasing rents at sensible levels—using my definition of sensible and not the Minister's—but what

  877
  is not acceptable is that in recent years the Government have removed the subsidy from the rented sector so that people are forced to pay more.
  The Minister says that housing benefit is available, but it has been cut eight times by the Government, to the extent that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have constituents who have lost up to £10 a week in benefit. That is why the Government had to introduce phased transitional arrangements.
  Still worse, late at night, the Government introduced that wicked Act in which they cut the benefit of people who have a spare room. If someone has a two-bedroomed home and a member of his family dies or moves out that person will suddenly lose housing benefit because he has a spare room. The Minister should try telling people that they will lose mortgage income tax relief if they have a spare room. How many spare rooms does the Minister have and how much mortgage tax relief does he get? If he thinks that it is fair that he gets mortgage income tax relief on his spare room, he should conclude that people in rented accommodation with a spare room should also receive some subsidy.
  Mr. Battle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister's statement that the Bill proposes no changes in housing benefit was quite incredible? I know that the Minister was not on the Committee considering the Bill, but he might have had the courtesy of reading the reports of its proceedings before he spoke. It is absolutely plain that one of the most iniquitous proposals in the Bill is the suggestion that those paying rent who are not on benefit will end up paying the difference in housing benefit when the subsidy is withdrawn from the DSS. That is in the Bill.
  Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was going to mention that in due course, but I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Back Benches will do so. What is happening is quite wicked because the poor will subsidise the very poor. I do not know why the Minister is shaking his head. His predecessor accepted that the aim was for those people receiving benefit to be paid in certain circumstances—there will be many cases in local authorities—by people who were not receiving benefit. The next door neighbour not receiving housing benefit, but who has a job, will be subsidising in his rent level the housing benefit being paid to the person next door. It will not be paid centrally in the way that it used to be. It is incredible that the Minister is not aware of that.
  6 pm
  Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the position. Under the new ring-fenced housing revenue accounts money from the taxpayer—the taxpayers' subsidy—will be used to meet the needs that exist. For example, if there is a need for more housing benefit to be paid out of that ring-fenced account by a given local authority because of the needs of its tenants, all things being equal, that will be compensated for by increased subsidy. It is a misrepresentation to suggest that the poor tenants will be subsidising the even poorer.
  Mr. Soley: Before he reads the message being passed to him by the civil servants, will the Minister give the House a guarantee that if any local authority finds itself in a
  878
  position where the people receiving housing benefit are having that benefit paid for by other tenants it will receive an increase in subsidy so that that will not have to happen?
  Mr. Chope: This is the first time that I have debated across the Chamber with the hon. Gentleman and I have come to the conclusion that he is selective in his choice of examples. He said that Government support for Hammersmith and Fulham has been cut causing rent increases. Does he accept that in 1986–87 housing subsidy in Hammersmith and Fulham was £10·5 million and in the current year it is £21·6 million? It has more than doubled but the hon. Gentleman was asserting that the Government have cut support to Hammersmith and Fulham. If he cannot get his facts right concerning his own local authority, I cannot take him seriously.
  Mr. Soley: I will deal with both points. The Minister used 1987 as an example. I too would choose that year as an example. However, we are worried about the past 10 years during which time the Government cut money to local authorities by about £24 billion. Hammersmith and Fulham has borne more than its fair share of cuts, even when it was under Conservative control.
  I thought that the Minister was going to give the House the commitment for which I asked. He said that I was being selective and misleading but I know that he would not want me to mislead the House. If I find an example of a local authority where housing benefit is being paid to some tenants and that benefit is being paid for by other tenants through the rents, will he give a commitment that he will ensure Exchequer subsidy to prevent that happening? Can we have a straight answer to that question because every local authority whether Labour or Tory is in that position?
  Mr. Chope: We will ensure that where an authority cannot raise sufficient income to cover all the costs in its housing revenue account, including the cost of rebates, subsidy will be paid to make up the shortfall. There is no question of tenants having to pay more because of an increase in the rebates bill. If the cost of rebates increases, subsidy will increase to meet the extra costs. That subsidy should go to the authorities that need it and not to cover costs that authorities can meet for themselves. The closer we stick to that basic principle the more we can do to assist in meeting real needs. The further we stray from it, the more we will leave real needs unsatisfied. Perhaps that is what the hon. Gentleman wants.
  Mr. Soley: The Minister is avoiding the change in the wording. Clearly he is not familiar with the Bill. Clause 78(1) of the pre-amended Bill says:
  "In subsection (2) of section 30 of the Social Security Act 1986 (housing benefit finance), for the words 'total housing benefit' there shall be substituted the words 'relevant benefit' and there shall be added at the end the words 'and in this subsection "relevant benefit" means total housing benefit excluding, in the case of a local authority in England and Wales, any Housing Revenue Account rebates granted by them'."
  Will the Minister give the House a commitment that he will ensure that any local authority finding itself in the position which I have described and which is set out in the Bill will receive the subsidy that the Minister said it should receive? Will the Minister answer yes or no?
  Mr. Chope: I have set out the position clearly. The hon. Gentleman is mischievously trying to suggest that where a

  879
  local authority is in need, tenants will have to pay more because of an increase in the rebates bill. He may not find that he has much material in the Labour party's policies on housing but he ought to get our policies right and understand them before he criticises them.
  Mr. Soley: Getting it right involves reading the Government's clause, which I have just done. The Minister's position will be unassailable much sooner than I thought. He will not last long in the job if he makes such gaffs. It will not be missed that the Minister said that there would be subsidy from the taxpayer to ensure that the poor did not subsidise the poorest and then retreated to the position that he now holds.
  Capital value rents will force considerable rent rises. The Minister skated over that lightly saying that the average rent rise would be quite low. I cannot remember the figure he used, but I think that he said it would be about 95p minimum and £4·50 maximum. The Minister could use this point against me if he wanted but the places worst hurt will be the southern areas of Britain. One of the people most hurt would be the chairman of the Conservative party—the man who encourages the team approach. The man in Mole Valley will not be clobbered on the poll tax but every one of his council tenants will have to pay an increase of £4·50 a week in rent.
  Can the Minister try to understand what it is like to live on the average wage of an unskilled person which is about £100 a week and then have to pay a rent increase of £4·50 per week? Can he envisage a situation where, because of housing benefit tapers and cut-offs, many people will not receive any benefit towards that, or if they do, it will be minimal benefit? What will the Minister say to the tenants in many Conservative areas in the south who next year will face rent increases of up to £4·50? He could tell them to do what they are doing in Canterbury or Elmbridge, which is to abandon council housing altogether and hand it over to a housing association where tenants can expect another massive rent increase. The increase was 24 per cent. last year and it will be high again next year, although at present it is hard to predict just how high it will be.
  There is also the question of capitalised repairs. Council rent levels are further threatened by the plan to stop local authorities spending capital receipts on repairs. In the past that has been accepted as entirely legitimate by the Department of the Environment. All of a sudden, the Minister has discovered that that is not what accountants would do. In fact, it is what accountants do in private business, in the public sector or in everyday life. It is a normal, sensible way of managing one's affairs. That is why I can pray in aid Lady Anson and the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils and most of the other Conservative authorities which are not in the ADC. All of them agree with me that they should be able to use the money that they have accumulated to meet their repair and renovation expenses.
  I am not alone in saying that the anxiety that is being caused to tenants is unacceptable. I have a cutting from the Hemel Hempstead Herald and Post about Dacorum council, another Tory-controlled authority. It states:
  "tenants could face huge rent increases if the Government ties levels to the local private housing market.
  Chairman of the borough council's Housing Committee"—
  a Conservative, of course—
  880
  "Councillor Peter Benton, told the Herald and Post he is waiting 'quite anxiously' for information on new Government orders.
  'It really could he a muddle of things. The point is that we are already an efficient council with our housing stock of 15,000 homes,' said Councillor Benton.
  'This is just another step in reducing our responsibility and one can only regret that.'
  'They are figures'"—
  I do not know whether I entirely agree with this—
  "'drawn up by bald-headed civil servants eating their salmon sandwiches in the Department of the Environment in Marsham street'."
  I have not seen many bald-headed civil servants eating salmon sandwiches in the Department of the Environment, but that is what councillor Benton thinks.
  He went on to state:
  "'it will be an order of the Government"—
  that is absolutely right—
  "which the council can do nothing about'."
  I shall offer the Minister an opportunity to intervene. He thinks that there is everything that he can do about it. Will he give an assurance to the Conservative leader of Dacorum council that he will ensure he gives it sufficient subsidy so that it need not do what councillor Benton thinks it must do?
  Mr. Chope: Dacorum council is Conservative-controlled. The hon. Gentleman also referred to Mole Valley. He seems to think that it is wrong for a political party to impose fairer policies which may have an impact upon its supporters in certain areas. The Government do not share the hon. Gentleman's cynical view of politics. Last year, in Mole Valley, average rents were £19·74, and in Dacorum they were £18·99. There is plenty of scope for reasonable rent increases in those areas, having regard to the fact that, in the hon. Gentleman's own borough of Hammersmith, average rents were £35·88 last year. Also, this year in Haringey, which most hon. Members regard as a borough with considerable needs, rents increased not by £4·50 but by two tranches of £4·50—one in the spring and one in October.
  Mr. Soley: Let me try to help the Minister, as he is clearly getting into some difficulty. He should sit back and relax and imagine that everything that I say to him is designed to help him out of a hole—funnily enough, it is. He should abandon his absurd approach to setting rents and should sit down with his officials—he had better bring in one of his senior friends or he will quickly find himself out of a job—and start asking, "What is an affordable rent?" He could start from the position that many people in the housing movement have taken. If people are spending more than 20 per cent. of their net disposable income on rent or housing costs generally, they will quickly get into serious economic trouble.
  I do not expect the Minister to say that 20 per cent. of one's net disposable income is a satisfactory rent level. It is not—it is too high. That percentage should be the highest. However, we know that, increasingly, it is the case for council tenants, housing association tenants and, above all, private sector tenants. Many tenants in housing associations, the private sector and, increasingly, in the council sector, are paying between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. of their net disposable income on housing costs.
  If the Minister bought a house and mortgaged himself up to the hilt, he would be terribly worried if he found himself paying 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. of his net disposable revenue on housing costs for more than a year

  881
  or two. He knows that he could not do it. If one cannot do that on a Minister's salary, I am damn sure that one cannot do it on the salary of a skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled person. I implore the Minister to give up the daft argument that he is getting himself into about whether councils can set levels. We all know that they cannot. We know that the Government have been centralising local authority powers like mad. The issue is not just about that. It is about what people can pay for rent and the subsidy that is being taken from them in the private sector, the housing association sector and the council sector.
  Unless the Minister gets this matter right, he must soon face up to the fact that not only will more people be pushed into homelessness and economic despair because they cannot afford their rents, but, setting the personal problem aside, the economic effects will be disastrous. Not only in London but in many other parts of the country now employers cannot find employees in areas in which housing costs are high.
  6.15 pm
  Yesterday, on the Radio 4 "Today" programme, the Secretary of State for Education and Science volunteered the information—I did not prime him to say it—that the Government cannot recruit and retain teachers because housing costs are too high. If Conservatives—councillors and Ministers alike—are saying that, there must be something seriously wrong. If I cannot convince the Minister that this matter is deadly serious by referring to kids in the streets with their "homeless and hungry" signs or by getting him to examine mortgage rates and so on, what on earth can I do to convince him?
  Matters have been made worse by what the Government are trying to do. They set out their proposals in their consultation paper of 23 October. It states:
  "It is essential therefore that the introduction of the new system should not of itself introduce any sharp change in the level of rents or management and maintenance spending in any individual authority … The effect of these proposals will be to ensure a smooth transition to the new regime."
  The new regime involves rent increases of up to 173 per cent. in some areas, again including Mole Valley. The document went on:
  "For the tenant, the immediate effect should be indistinguishable from what would have happened if the current system had remained in force."
  The Minister should tell that to the tenant in Mole Valley when he pays £4·50 a week extra. The commitment was known as the soft landing. If that is a soft landing, and if the economy is also in for a soft landing, we had better emigrate before it is too late.
  Mr. Chope: One question is at the root of the hon. Gentleman's argument. If rents of £35·88 in Hammersmith are affordable, why must we permit Mole Valley rents to go up by no more than £1·95 a week? Why should Mole Valley rents of £19·74 not be allowed to increase so that they are more in line with costs in that area?
  Mr. Soley: Apart from capital values, which are relevant, the real problem is that the Government are embroiled in a situation in which the housing subsidy system is now chaotic. They have allowed the purchase sector, subsidy to expand and expand—not only through income tax relief but through discount sales and so on—at the same time as they cut the subsidy to the rented
  882
  sector. That distorts the housing market to the extent that there is enormous house price inflation and people are unable to buy. Because the Government have moved literally 1·2 million homes out of the rented sector into the purchase sector, and because the building of new premises has come to a grinding halt because of interest rates, there is nothing to replace the rented sector. That is why people cannot find anywhere to rent or to buy. It is basic economics—supply and demand. The Government do not seem to understand those basic mechanisms.
  The effect of the proposals of 23 October is that 66 authorities will have an assumed rent increase of £4·50—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—170 authorities at the minimum rate of 95p, and the rest will be somewhere in between. The £4·50 increases are overwhelmingly in London and the south-east, where rents are already higher than in the rest of the country. On 24 October, the then Minister, Lord Caithness—another one who lasted only a short time; some people did not notice his departure, let alone his arrival—tried to pretend that the Government had achieved a soft landing. Indeed, they said that they had already achieved a soft landing, so if the £4·50 was still to come, presumably that is where one would hit the barrier. Lord Caithness said that the average assumed increase was £2·08—that is about 10 per cent. in cash terms—and was because so many authorities, especially in the north, had increases of 95p—below the rate of inflation.
  However, that is not the whole picture. It was stated that the new system should not
  "of itself introduce any sharp changes in rents … in any individual authority."
  However, that is clearly what it has done. In terms of that commitment, the average figure is irrelevant. The Minister should look at the figure of £4·50. The Government's proposals also stated:
  "for the tenant the immediate effect should be indistinguishable from what would have happened if the current system had remained in force".
  The Minister should tell that to the Mole Valley tenants and to those in the other 65 authorities. The average is irrelevant to tenants in Hackney, Lambeth, Mole Valley or Cambridge. What matters to them is the amount by which the provisions will affect them. The figure of £4·50 for those 66 authorities is over 50 per cent. higher than any determination that has ever been made under the existing system. Even if the 1981–82 figure of £2·95 is increased to allow for inflation, it is still only an increase in 1990–91 prices of £4·41. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to that in due course.
  I turn now to the issue of bad debts and rent arrears and to Lords amendment No. 320. I refer to the Minister's earlier remarks about the subsidy available. Local authority tenants are having increasing difficulty in paying their rents. Although local authorities generally are devising new forms of management systems to make it easier for tenants, if a person's rent is taking an increasing amount of net disposable income, that person will get into arrears.
  I should like the Minister to respond to my next point when he replies to the debate. The Audit Commission is about to issue a report, the contents of which are well known, demonstrating that there has been a massive increase in rent arrears in virtually all local authorities. The Audit Commission is equally clear about the cause. It states that the cause is the housing benefits cuts. Will the

  883
  Minister address himself to the challenge that the Audit Commission is putting to this House—and especially to the Government—and do something to prevent rent arrears from escalating in local authorities across the country because of the housing benefit cuts rightly identified by the Audit Commission and about which many of my hon. Friends have known for ages?
  We shall seek to divide the House on amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 119, which deals with the repair and renovation issue.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because I want to point out to him that, while he was commenting on the dramatic increase in rent arrears following the housing benefit changes, the Minister was shaking his head in disagreement. I agree that it is his own head—and he is welcome to it because it is not a particularly clever or pretty one—but the fact is that all the evidence is so overwhelming that I cannot understand why the Minister is in dispute. I can give him the figures for my own London borough of Newham, where arrears increased by 30 per cent.—in line with the average increase in arrears throughout the country, in both Tory and Labour authorities. Can my hon. Friend explain why the Minister does not seem able to understand the facts?
  Mr. Soley: What I can explain to my hon. Friend, who rightly pointed out that it is the Minister's head and he is entitled to shake it if he wants, is that the reason the Minister shook his head is that if he had said, "No", it would have appeared in Hansard, whereas the shaking of a head does not often appear in Hansard. If the Minister has not discovered this already, he will discover pretty shortly that what I have said about the Audit Commission is absolutely right.
  Mr. Banks: Perhaps the Minister's body was wriggling and shaking while his head stayed still.
  Mr. Soley: We shall seek to divide the House on amendment (b) because we do not want any rent increase over and above the highest agreed by the Government in the last three years, which is about £1·95. As I have said, they will increase this year by £4·50 for many people. We shall seek to divide the House because we believe that the increase should be held to a maximum of £1·95, given that the increases that the Government have brought about over the previous eight or nine years have been well above what would normally have been expected by tenants.
  I turn now to amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 119. As capitalised repairs will increase costs, when setting the Government's prescribed rent levels, I should like the Secretary of State to take their effect into account. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) said in an intervention, the danger is that if the new capital value rents are taken into account together with the capitalised repairs problem, there is no doubt that several local authorities around the country—again, of all political colours—will face rent increases running into two figures—in other words, of over £10 per week. Furthermore, the authorities will not be able to do much about it. They could stop doing some of the repairs, with all that that implies for a worsening in living conditions and a decline in the housing stock. However, even if they leave some repairs, they cannot ignore them all and will then face rent increases in some areas of over £10 per week.
  884
  I am simply asking the Secretary of State to take into account capitalised repairs before setting the rents. The Government's assumed maintenance figure for capitalised repairs may be wrong for 1990–91. Indeed, I am sure that it will be wrong. At this stage I simply want to put on the record the fact that I believe that there will be strong evidence to support that.
  I have spoken for longer than I had intended, but as hon. Members will agree, I have taken several interventions. These issues are incredibly important. I end where I began, by saying that we are facing a housing crisis in this country the like of which we have not faced since the end of the second world war. The position is now desperately serious. I pray in aid again the Association of District Councils, which has produced a report entitled "A Time to Take Stock", stating that we need to spend between £36 billion and £50 billion just to maintain the existing stock in good repair or rather to improve its condition. When sentiments such as that come from Conservative organisations which are pleading with the Government to do something, I know that what my hon. Friends and I have been saying for many years is correct.
  The housing crisis that is tearing apart the fabric of our society is not confined to the inner cities. It does not just affect the high-priced areas of the south. It is tearing apart the lives and the communities of people in urban and rural parts of Britain, in the north, south, east and west. Its worst form is the homeless child begging in the streets. Its everyday form can be seen in the people who cannot afford to pay their rents or mortgages and who become homeless as a result.
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I rise to support the Opposition amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has just delivered what I and many of my hon. Friends regard as an excellent opening to our debate, telling a few truths which, unfortunately, the Government are not necessarily prepared to accept. I have watched the Ministers on the Treasury Bench shaking their heads like nodding toy dogs in the backs of cars. It is a disgrace that they should do that and then simply read out the notes passed to them by the civil servants in the Box when they do not have a clue what this is all about.
  All Opposition Members and the majority of people in the country know that costs are increasing alarmingly in every sector of housing. We have all heard about the plight of home owners. The mortgage increases and high interest rates have been given great publicity by the press and many of us are, of course, subject to those increases ourselves. The increases in local authority rents, however, have received little attention. Local authority tenants have faced huge increases over the past few years, yet these have been largely ignored by the press, and even by this House. Housing association tenants and tenants in the private sector have also been badly hit in the past few years. However, I wish to speak about local authority tenants.
  6.30 pm
  Council rents in England this year have gone up by an average of £1·44 per week, representing an increase of 9·6 per cent. That is bad, but it is not half so bad as what will happen if the part of the Bill with which we are dealing passes unamended into law. Further major increases in council house rents will be inevitable.

  885
  In considering the housing revenue account subsidy, I will cite my local authority in the hope that the Minister will reconsider the situation. If the Bill is unamended and the notional housing revenue account turns out to be a minus, the amount in question will have to be paid over to the general rate fund irrespective of whether it equates with the actual revenue housing account. For my local authority of Durham, that will mean about £1 million more, or £2 extra per week per council house tenant. That sum will have to be passed to the general rate fund account or to one of the other accounts mentioned in the Bill. That is daft because one need not be a brilliant accountant to know that the notional account will become £2 million in deficit terms in view of the £1 million that is pushed over and the other £1 million that has to be found to bring the account into credit.
  Nowhere in the Bill can I see what should be done with that additional £1 million when it is notionally put into another account. I suppose that it will be used notionally to subsidise the poll tax.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Has my hon. Friend considered, in relation to Durham's housing revenue account, what the effect would be on the interest element if tenants were allowed tax relief in the way that mortgage payers get tax relief on their mortgage interest, whether or not they need that subsidy?
  Mr. Steinberg: My hon. Friend makes a valid point and I wanted to intervene in the Minister's speech to put that question. The Minister argued that a local authority's general rate fund should not subsidise council house tenants. He asked why the ordinary ratepayer should subsidise council tenants. But does he not also regard tax relief on mortgage interest as a subsidy from the taxpayer to the mortgage payer? If so, will he accept that a council tenant who does not have a mortgage but who pays all his other taxes is contributing to what is, in effect, a subsidy to mortgage payers? Would it not therefore be fair for ratepayers to contribute to a subsidy for council tenants?
  As the Bill is drafted, the Secretary of State can dictatorially control the rents of every local authority. He can control the management functions and, by using the subsidy formula, he can control the quality and range of repairs that local authorities may carry out. There must be safeguards in the use of that power. Under the Bill as drafted, councils will have to decrease the overall service that they provide to their tenants or substantially increase rents. Common sense dictates that a further deterioration of council properties will occur unless council rents are subsidised to the necessary extent.
  Does the Minister want to see the nation's local authority housing stock deteriorate? Is it, indeed, his aim to see council houses deteriorate due to lack of money to repair them? If not, and if he believes that authorities should look after their houses adequately and have the necessary funds to do so, he must amend the calculations in the Bill.
  I again take my local authority of Durham as an example in considering the issue of capitalised repairs. It is not a large authority. I recall the Minister visiting Durham some years ago and meeting me and fellow councillors in the authority's hospitality room. We shared a drink, which
  886
  was coffee; because the drinks have to be paid for out of the rates and it is a prudent local authority, that is all that we are given to drink.
  It is estimated that by 1991, £2·335 million will have been channeled into the housing revenue account for capitalised repairs out of the capital receipts from the sale of council houses. But the Bill will prevent capital receipts from being used for capitalised repairs. In future, 25 per cent. of capital receipts will be available for capital work and the other 75 per cent. must go to redeem debt. In other words, 75 per cent. of the capital receipts that some local authorities were using to carry out capitalised repairs will no longer be available to them. If Durham council wants to continue its capitalised repair programme—in other words, if it wishes to do the equivalent amount of work that it planned to do—the money will have to be found from elsewhere, and the only way to raise it will be by raising the rents.
  Local authorities have been forced to use their capital receipts for capitalised repairs because their HIP allocations have been cut dramatically over the years. For example, whereas in 1982 Durham received £2·85 million, this year it will receive £1·26 million. That is why Durham and other authorities took the opportunity of using capital receipts to do capitalised repairs. If Durham wishes to maintain the same programme but substitute the sum involved with a rent rise, it will have to increase rents by about £4·70 per week per tenant. Will the Minister cushion such an appalling increase and compensate for the necessary capital allocation? Will he take such matters into account when fixing management and maintenance allowances for subsidy purposes?
  The Durham architects department has made substantial profits on contracts in recent years. Those profits have been made even though the department has tendered against private building companies. The department, having won those contracts, has made huge profits for the local authority. In the past, those profits had to be credited to the general rate fund. The city council then transferred it back to the credit of housing repairs in the housing revenue account. In other words, Durham was able to use its direct labour organisation profits to carry out further major housing repairs.
  While the Bill was in Committee I wrote to the then Minister to ask him to clarify whether it would still be valid for DLO profits to be used in the housing revenue account. The letter that I received in reply was difficult to understand, but it seemed to say that that practice would remain legitimate after the Bill had been enacted. Having studied the Bill more closely, it appears to me that because of the ring-fencing regulations it will not be valid for those profits to be used, although that had been the impression gained by the local authority and by me.
  In 1989–90 about £1·2 million went into the housing revenue account from DLO profits. If my local authority wants to continue its programme of work next year at the same level as this year, council house rents will have to increase by £2·42 per week per tenant. I hope that the Minister will clarify this. If he cannot do so tonight, I hope that he will write to me. Such clarification is vital to Durham city council and I suspect that it is equally important to many other local authorities which use their DLO profits in that way.
  The rent rebate subsidy takes up part of the housing revenue account. Admittedly, at the moment 97 per cent. of that subsidy is paid by the Government and only 3 per

  887
  cent. comes from the general rate fund. Because of the ring-fencing regulations, however, the authority will have to find the extra 3 per cent. as it will no longer be lawful to take it from the general fund. That does not represent a large amount of money in Durham—it is probably chicken feed to the majority of local authorities—but it does amount to £130,000, and to raise that money in the future the council will have to increase the rent paid by council house tenants by 26p per week.
  Given the possible increases that may be incurred as a result of the Bill, what will the proposed changes mean to tenants living in Durham? If the local authority wants to carry on with the work that it has undertaken for the past few years, rents will have to increase by £9·30 per week—and that does not take into account any increase for inflation or anything else. Rents will have to increase by 45 per cent. next year merely to allow the level of repairs to stand still. I do not believe that that is fair and I am sure that even Ministers in the present Government would not regard it as fair. One must remember that that rent rise would not take into account any general increase in rents—it would be needed just to do the work necessary to stand still. When calculating the housing revenue account subsidy the Minister must take into account the likely changes that will result from his decisions. Failure to do that will be a disaster for my local authority and for the majority of council house tenants.
  6.45 pm
  I doubt that local authorities will increase their rents by 50 per cent.—tenants could not afford to pay such an increase. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith has already explained what a person expects to pay for his housing out of his general income. It is simply not on to increase council house rents by 50 per cent. Without such increases, however, repair programmes will be slashed. Properties will deteriorate and fall into further disrepair. The Minister may question whether such repairs need to be done in the first place. A recent survey conducted in my local authority showed that properties needed about £66 million to be spent on them to bring them up to a reasonable standard. The amount of money that needs to be spent throughout the country to bring all local authority housing up to a reasonable standard of repair runs into billions. That money must be spent and I hope that the Government will take that into account when considering the housing revenue account calculations.
  The Government encouraged local authorities to use their capital receipts for repairs and, having done so, it is not right for them to leave those authorities in the lurch. Local authorities acted in good faith, they took the advice of the Government and they used their capital receipts to carry out capitalised repairs. The Government now intend to withdraw that money. The Government have said that rents will not rise as a result of the Bill, but we all know that that is a ludicrous claim. The Minister may give us the information that is passed to him from the officials' Box, but we all know that council house rents will rise steeply unless he changes the method by which he calculates the housing subsidy.
  I hope that the Minister will take cognisance of a Department of the Environment consultative paper issued on 27 July 1988 which said:
  "It is essential therefore that the introduction of the new system should not of itself introduce any sharp change in the level of rents or management and maintenance spending in any individual authority … The effect of these proposals will
  888
  be to ensure a smooth transition to the new regime. For the tenant, the immediate effect should be indistinguishable from what would have happened if the current system had remained in force."
  If the Bill goes through unamended, the new system will be far from indistinguishable from the present system. I plead with the Minister to consider the calculations to ensure that local authorities are given subsidies for their housing revenue accounts to enable them to carry out the necessary work as that will ensure that tenants do not face astronomical rent increases to pay for that work to be done.
  Mr. George Howarth: I recommend that the newly appointed Ministers should look at the statements on housing policy made by their predecessors since 1979. I spent some time doing just that. It is an increasingly interesting exercise as one realises that there has been a common thread running through Government policy which brings us to what we are discussing today: what is a sensible rent to expect people to pay for their council house or flat? I want to consider what the Government's housing legislation has amounted to since 1979.
  No Conservative Member would deny that the Government originally had only one housing policy. They believed in universal owner-occupation. They thought that there was only one way in which the market could resolve the problems that people faced in finding suitable housing, and that was through owner-occupation. That policy led to the Housing Act 1980, which conferred on sitting tenants the right to buy with discounts according to the length of time that they had been tenants.
  The way in which the Government responded to the effects of the Housing Act 1980 was very interesting. They did not stop by giving council tenants the right to purchase their properties with discounts relating to the time that that person had been a tenant. Between 1981 and 1983, when he was a Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) regularly appeared at the Dispatch Box, with other Ministers, to say that he expected local authorities to introduce rent increases of £2·50, and over three or four years that increased to more than £6. That was no accident. It occurred because the Government regressively withdrew subsidies to local authorities which would have allowed them to cushion the effects of rent increases.
  For the first time we saw the carrot-and-stick approach which the Government have consistently adopted towards housing policy. Indeed, that is the only consistent thing that the Government have done in housing in their entire 10 years in office. The carrot was the opportunity to exercise the right to buy; the stick was that if a tenant did not exercise that right, he would inevitably face increasing rent bills. As a consequence, it would eventually become sensible, to use the Minister's words, to exercise the right to buy instead of remaining a tenant.
  To some extent, in the Government's terms, the right-to-buy policy was a success. Perhaps against their initial inclination, many people decided that it made financial good sense to purchase their council houses. Some people in London made huge profits. On a day-to-day budgeting basis, over five or 10 years, it probably made sense for many people to cut their outgoings in rent by purchasing their council homes because their rents would inevitably overtake what they would be expending in mortgage payments had they purchased the council house with a discount.
  Mr. Pike: There is another aspect to the stick approach. In addition to direct subsidy to housing, local authorities had to consider grant-related expenditure housing factor E7. If they had not taken account of the kind of increase which the Government were advocating, they were penalised through factor E7. The stick was double edged.
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. My hon. Friend and I have both worked in local authorities. I was a chairman of a local authority housing committee and I know that such factors played a major part in assessing rent increase limits. Year after year it became depressingly repetitive having to make those calculations. Cuts in rate support grant and withdrawal of subsidies in general made it almost impossible to avoid large rent increases.
  By the mid-1980s, the Government's housing policy seemed to be failing. It was not failing because they had not succeeded in selling council houses; they succeeded in doing that on a large scale. It failed for other reasons. Economists such as Professor Mintford concluded that the lack of opportunity to rent property was acting as a brake on the mobility of labour.
  That meant that young people in my constituency, where we still have a major unemployment problem, could not come to London or the south-east to find jobs because they had nowhere to stay. I will not go into Professor Mintford's recommendations to the Government in detail. Perhaps the Minister will read over those recommendations and assimilate them. The major thrust of Professor Mintford's argument was that there was a need for rented property, certainly in the south-east and London.
  Professor Mintford has a peculiar brand of economics. He considered the problems of Merseyside and decided that there was too much of it. The logical solution therefore was to remove half of it. I am not sure which side of the Mersey he had in mind, but—
  Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's arguments is so far as they relate to the Lords amendments. It is very interesting to hear his general views on the Government's housing policy. However, is not his contribution more of a Second Reading speech than one specifically related to the amendments under discussion?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I remind the hon. Gentleman that that is for me to judge. If the hon. Gentleman looks at this group of amendments, he will see that they cover a wide range of issues.
  Mr. Howarth: As usual, the impatience of the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) overtakes his intellectual gift for following the debate. I have no difficulty in following his point of order, and I am sure that at the appropriate time he will intervene and make his own comments which, as usual, will be well wide of the mark.
  Until Professor Mintford and others rode on to the housing scene, the Government had only one panacea—owner-occupation. Professor Mintford believed that the revival of the private rented sector—and he suggested direct incentives for that from central Government—was the key to providing the accommodation needed in London and the south-east to bring the unemployed down from the north from constituencies like mine to work in Wimpy bars in London and rent in the private sector.
  890
  Professor Mintford's suggestion about developing the private rented sector led to the Housing Act 1988. Many of us spent three and a half months trying to fathom out the logic of that Act. It was obvious that the Government accepted the suggestions of Professor Mintford and others that there was a need for rented accommodation, and they decided to create that through the private rented sector.
  The Government embarked on a programme of privatising the housing association sector. I have given that phrase some thought; I have not simply thrown it out. If we consider the development of Government policy towards the housing associations over the past two or three years, effectively, as the present Minister for the Environment and Countryside used to say frequently at the Dispatch Box, they are pushing what was a voluntary sector into the private sector. They are doing that through financial means.
  The Government were in favour of expanding the private rented sector. Secondly, they were in favour of deregulating housing associations. Thirdly, they created a series of devices under part IV of the Act to bring about the breaking up of local authority housing. They made no bones about that—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman quite a lot of rope; I do not want him to hang himself. If he came back to the housing revenue accounts, I should be much obliged.
  7 pm
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would not dream of straying from the subject.
  The Government's general attitude towards housing is summed up in the proposals on ring fencing as they apply to all these matters.
  In the 1988 Act the Government set out, through the use of housing action trusts and the pick-a-landlord—strictly speaking, the pick-a-nant—schemes, to give people the opportunity to opt out of local authority housing—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going very wide. I have asked him once to return to the point.
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  These provisions have universally failed—no one has opted out. I have described the carrot, which was the offer of somewhere else to go, but the stick is contained in this Bill. It is to be seen in the Government's treatment of council house rents and housing revenue accounts. Having failed with the carrot, they now introduce the stick. As in the early 1980s and subsequently, new arrangements for rents and for the way in which council house finance is treated are being introduced to make it increasingly attractive to tenants to opt out of a local authority.
  The Government hope that tenants will opt either into the newly deregulated housing association sector or into some other form of housing. The Minister is nodding as I point out last year's carrot and this year's stick.
  Instead of taking a sensible view of housing policy and of choice, the Government have chosen to victimise council tenants, because of their own ideological predictions, so that they can force them into a financial position in which they have no choice but to follow the Government line. If the Government were so worried

  891
  about the situation, why did they not look into some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) mentioned? Why did they not recognise that billions of pounds are needed to put all the housing stock of all the various types of tenure in good order? Why did they not devise a new system to do that effectively? They did not even attempt to think about it. Despite their protestations, why did not the Government consider doing something through local authorities—they are responsible for homelessness—to try to resolve the problem of homelessness?
  One of our amendments deals with homelessness. It is no accident, given that the Government have removed 1·2 million properties from all types of rented accommodation, that somewhere along the line something has to give. What gave is visible on the streets of London and across the country. It is not a problem that affects only London; 43 per cent. of all the people who registered as homeless last year were outside London—in towns, rural areas and other cities. These people have nowhere to go. Even when there is surplus local authority accommodation that can be brought on to the market, the Government will so arrange the housing revenue account and other factors that affect local authorities that these people will probably not receive the right combination of benefits to support their efforts to rent a council house or flat.
  The Government can pump a few million pounds here and a few million there into new schemes and claim to be a caring Government who are doing something about homelessness, but they know that the problem will get worse until more houses are built. Since 1979, 19,000 fewer council houses a year have been built and there have been 9,000 fewer housing association completions every year. Clearly no effort has been made to deal with the problems of homelessness.
  The Government talk about subsidies. I served on the Standing Committee of this Bill, and it was absolutely clear to us that the way in which the rate fund contributions and housing benefit will work is that the poor will be bound to subsidise the even poorer, perhaps to the advantage of the taxpayer but definitely to the disadvantage of those who are trapped in the system.
  It is worth discussing who gets what out of the housing system. Housing benefit, whether we like it or not, is the subsidy that applies to those in greatest need. Over the past two or three years the Government have been intent on reducing it. They have not had the guts or the foresight to look at mortgage income tax relief, which is the comparable system—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman himself said that he was a member of the Standing Committee. As such he is familiar with this clause and with the amendments, and I must refer him to them.
  Mr. Howarth: This is a wide group of amendments. I am not sure how I can talk about the subsidy system that applies to local authority tenants without comparing it with housing subsidies for others in the community. I suggest that mortgage income tax relief is directly comparable—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not in the Bill, and it is way outside our debate this evening.
  Mr. Howarth: It was worth a try.
  892
  As my hon. Friends have said, council tenants will not benefit from all this. Those in other sorts of tenure will continue to receive other sorts of benefits.
  The tragedy of this Bill is that the Government had an opportunity to examine all the problems that contribute to the housing crisis, but they have refused, or were too stubborn or too stupid, to deal with the problems. Instead they have carried on with a Bill that does nothing to resolve this country's housing problems. Our amendments would go some way to alleviating the problems that the Bill will cause, and I strongly commend them to the House. Some time in the next two or three years, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith will be at the Dispatch Box with Labour's housing Bill, and only then will we start to deal with the problems of housing.
  Mr. Battle: I shall speak to Lords amendment No. 117 and amendments (a) to (f) in the name of my hon. Friends. I shall also refer to amendment No. 121 on homelessness and to the amendments dealing with capitalised repairs.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) was right to deliver a wide-ranging speech because the Bill is becoming increasingly threadbare. The Government are in increasing difficulty in finding someone who is prepared to defend it. For weeks we have not been clear about who is the Minister for Housing. I gather that it is traditional for the Government to send a Minister to see the housing associations. However, they could not find one to send this year and a civil servant was sent. Obviously he cannot answer about policy.
  No one on the Government Front Bench has seen the Bill through every stage of its consideration in the House and in Committee. That means that for the benefit of the Ministers who are now with us we have to go over old ground again because Ministers now give us answers that are completely different from the answers that we received from former Ministers. I shall give one practical example. In this debate the Minister decried capitalisation of repairs. I remind him that his predecessor, who is now the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, said that he felt that capitalisation was entirely legitimate. Perhaps the Minister will say whether he agrees with his colleague or whether there has been a policy change.
  At least the policy of the former Minister was consistent with that of the present Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), who went round the country 18 months ago encouraging local authorities to use all their capital receipts for repairs. What is that if it is not legitimate capitalisation? Perhaps the Minister will explain whether policy changes with the Minister or whether it remains according to the content of the Bill as it is discussed in the House, in Committee and in the other place.
  Mr. Chope: There is a great danger that I will be traduced as a result of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here when I spoke earlier.
  Mr. Battle: I was.
  Mr. Chope: If that is the case, the hon. Gentleman should recall that I specifically differentiated between true capital and capitalised repairs and captitalised repairs that are not for true capital purposes but for the purpose of, for

  893
  example, carrying out routine decoration works which most people would regard as not an appropriate use of capital resources.
  Mr. Battle: I know that the Minister has not been in post for long. He should refer to Hansard and the debate in Committee on the Bill and on the 1988 Act which was on this precise topic. I am happy to assure him that former Ministers took a different view from the subtle distinction that the Minister is now trying to draw.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House. Can he give us chapter and verse of any occasion when any former junior Minister or Housing Minister told the Standing Committee or the House that small matters such as outside painting should be part of the capital programme? I do not remember that, and I do not believe that it happened.
  Mr. Battle: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman intervened. I seem to remember that he was on the Committee that examined the 1988 Bill. Perhaps he was writing Christmas cards and not paying attention. If he reads the Committee report, he will see that it contains a thorough discussion on the difference between capitalised repairs and the need to use capital receipts to carry out those repairs.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Where is it?
  Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman should go to the Vote Office and ask for the Standing Committee documents. If he spends the next two hours going through them instead of having his meal, he may find the information there.
  There is a key issue in the housing revenue account that will affect tenants. The Minister may not recall it, but I am sure that other hon. Members who took part in the debate and those who attended and listened will remember that we had a thorough discussion about the balancing of the housing revenue account. I remember pressing the Minister hard on the issue. One side of the housing revenue equation consists of income in the form of rents. The expenditure column contains the management and maintenance costs, the repair costs and the housing benefit costs. I am sure that from the briefings that he has been given the Minister will recall that at one stage the ring fencing of that account included the housing benefit to be paid to private sector tenants. That obviously caused a great loophole, because if landlords hyped up their rents the local authority would have had to use its housing revenue account to subsidise the high rents of the private landlord. That was ludicrous and was not then included in the Bill.
  At one point the Minister suggested that there had been no changes in the rebate structure, but I suggest that there have been because clause 78(1) of the Bill quite categorically states:
  "In subsection (2) of section 30 of the Social Security Act 1986 (housing benefit finance), for the words 'total housing benefit' there shall be substituted the words 'relevant benefit' and there shall be added at the end the words 'and in this subsection "relevant benefit" means total housing benefit excluding, in the case of a local authority in England and Wales, any Housing Revenue Account rebates granted by them'."
  894
  That illustrates the difficulty that we encountered right in the middle of the Committee. When we were in Committee discussing this Bill, another Committee on which I also had the privilege to serve was discussing the Social Security Bill. The Government had not got their act together and had not connected the proposals in the Social Security Bill to the Housing Act 1988. The reason for that is apparent because many council tenants are on housing benefit. If, as the Minister proposes, all housing rents go up in line with capital values, then the bill for social security and in particular housing benefit will increase incredibly as well. Therefore, a cut-off clause was introduced.
  The Minister needs to study the interaction between the Social Security Act 1988 and the Bill. If he does that, he will find that if rents rise for council tenants they will get their personal rebate but the local authority will not get its money back from the Department of Social Security. That shortfall in the accounts will have to be met from increases in the rents of tenants who are not on social security. There is no other way. That means that the poor or people on modest incomes will have their rents increased in order to pay the deficit in the housing benefit of those who are unemployed or have low incomes. Before the Minister and Conservative Members leap up and say that this will not affect people on benefits, they should look carefully at the detail of the Bill.
  There is a parallel to which I shall briefly refer. Many Conservative Members say that the poor will have the poll tax paid for them, but we all know that there is also a cut-off clause. The suggestion is that everybody will pay 20 per cent., and that means that the maximum rebate is only 80 per cent. The notion that the Government are protecting the poor from increases is false. It is quite wrong to use the Bill and housing policy as a means of sorting out income maintenance. That should be done through the social security system and not by insisting on cuts in the repair programmes of local authorities by putting pressure on the housing revenue account.
  I hope that the Minister will take that on board and will withdraw the proposals in the Bill before local authority rents go up and the social security offices refuse to reimburse local authorities for the housing benefit costs. As a result, local authorities will be penalised on the repair and maintenance work that they could provide for their tenants. It will mean that local authorities will put in the rebates and that the income maintenance which should come from the tax system through the social security system at the centre will be pushed back to local level. Perhaps in line with the Government's approach to poverty we will be pushed back again in the direction of a kind of retrograde parish relief system at local level.
  I asked the new Minister a question earlier today. It is relevant to amendment No. 112, as it deals with the homeless. I asked him:
  "what is the Government's estimate of the number of homeless people under the age of 18 years."
  The reply was:
  "The numbers of people under the age of 18 years among the households accepted as homeless are not reported by local authorities and my Department has no estimates."
  Given the new scientific age of computer calculation, and the emphasis that the Government put on collecting accurate information and statistics, I find an amazing complacency in that reply, not least because it is well known that in my city of Leeds every month 300 young

  895
  people present themselves as being homeless or threatened with homelessness, and that at least a third of them are aged under 18. I hope that the Minister is not suggesting that he will shuffle off responsibility for the homeless by saying that, as the Department cannot keep figures of those who are under 18, they are not a problem.
  The Minister should say that there will be a change of policy. The Bill, with its proposals to ring-fence the housing revenue account, will simply add to the ideological almost-addiction of the previous Secretary of State, who was hooked on the free market. He believed that the price was all—push rents up and the housing problems will be resolved. Already one of the Minister's colleagues has said that the Government will introduce no more legislation on housing, because they have "done housing".
  I take the view which I am sure many others take, that the Government's housing policies have resulted in a housing disaster in terms of improvement of stock and a housing tragedy in terms of human lives for those who are homeless. I hope that this rag-bag of amendments, whose acceptance would make the Bill even more shoddy, will mean that increasingly Ministers are unprepared to defend it, with the result that, even at this late stage, they will be prepared to withdraw it.
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I did not have the pleasure, if I may call it that, of serving on the Standing Committee on this, or any other, housing Bill. Therefore, like the Minister, I am new to the job. When I looked at the amendments and the Bill, this amendment dealing with ring fencing was the one that stood out. It seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to raise rents and work towards the elimination of all council housing. This may be the Government's aim.
  There is no doubt that there is a terrific housing shortage. I used to think that I came from a rather affluent society in my home town of Southport, which is in Sefton. However, when Sefton was created in 1974, we gathered Bootle, Crosby, Formby, Southport and many other little parishes. Within that group, I realised that there was a big and growing housing shortage. In my own home town of Southport, 3,000 families are waiting for housing. I cannot see that the Bill will improve that by one iota.
  The housing shortage is not contained merely within my Merseyside area. It stretches throughout the country, and since I live part of the time in London, I have been able to see the many homeless young people in the capital city. They are now moving out of the cardboard cities and into the concrete jungle because winter is coming. On many nights I have spoken to the police and to the homeless and they tell me that the problem continues to grow, not only in London but in other major cities, and now the towns. I cannot think that the Bill will help those homeless people.
  The deterioration in property will get worse. Some authorities have not been good at looking after their housing stock, and many have come to the attention of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. They are of many persuasions—all political parties have had that trouble. What the Minister is proposing will not help in any way to improve the housing stock, much of which now needs a great deal of money spent on it. The housing subsidy account and the housing revenue account have been able to cope with many of the repairs that need to be done to council housing, but from here on that will be much more difficult.
  896
  It has been said that the Minister claimed that rents would not rise. He did not say that—he was misquoted. He said that rents will not be out of the reach of ordinary people. I should like to know what the term "ordinary people" means.
  Mr. Battle: Those on average wages.
  Mr. Fern: I do not know. I hope that the Minister will explain what he means, because this is the yardstick on which the Government will work. I should find it difficult to spotlight the ordinary person by using that yardstick. Can he guarantee that when he comes to define ordinary people, rents will not be out of the reach of those people?
  It is morally wrong that better-off council tenants should be paying, through their rents, for the welfare benefits given to other tenants. Private and housing association tenants will not be put in that position. It will place council tenants in the difficult position of having to pay a little extra. This is particularly bad as better-off council tenants are a long way from being well off. There is no such thing as a well-off council tenant. A well-off person is one who owns his own property with only a small mortgage and there are few like that these days. To say that we are subsidising council tenants is untrue. It has never been true and it will not be true. It is another case of the poor subsidising the poor.
  We have here greater central Government control over local authorities' housing activities, thus once more stifling local initiative—something at which Whitehall has been very good, especially since 1979. I can see that the Bill will do nothing to alleviate the growing housing shortage. lf the Minister can explain one or two of those points, I for one shall have my eyes opened.
  Mr. David Winnick: Rent levels are already far too high, and the Bill will continue the substantial increases in rents that have already taken place. Those increases in rents result from the elimination of housing subsidies and are not the fault of the local council, certainly not mine, which recognises that much of the rent increases has been unjustified, but has simply no alternative, like every other local authority. These substantial rent increases have been aggravated by the substantial reduction in housing benefit. The phasing out of transitional benefit—a benefit which came about only as a result of the outcry, particularly by Opposition Members—will mean that many of those who will be expected to pay full rents will not be in a position to do so.
  I receive many complaints from constituents about rent levels. They come to see me at my surgeries and show me the amount of rent that they are paying out of a relatively small income. I can hardly believe that they can be paying so much in rent. As one would expect, I write to the housing department, but it is nearly all in order in most cases. Usually there has been no mistake and the responsibility falls on the Government who, since they came to office 10 years ago, have deliberately pursued the policy of making life more and more difficult for local authority tenants.
  One of the reasons why rents have gone up, apart from the substantial reduction in housing subsidies, is the Government's wish for council tenants to buy. They are pressurised to buy. They are told, "Why remain a council tenant? It is easier to buy." In many cases they have no wish to buy the property in which they live. The ring fencing that is included in the Bill will ensure that tenants

  897
  who are certainly not well off, but who are somewhat better off than others, will subsidise poorer tenants. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said, the poor will subsidise the very poor.
  We have not heard much from the Minister about the private sector. He would be boasting if there were any justification for boasting. We know the junior Minister's record before he came to the House. He is a fanatic about the privately-rented sector. He and other Ministers told us that there would be a revival of that sector, that that would solve much of the homelessness and the difficulties experienced by so many people.
  I wonder how many more rented accommodation has come about in the private sector since the new legislation was put on the statute book—not much. That demonstrates what we said at the time—that the revival would not come about for all the reasons that we gave at the time. We are confronted by an acute housing crisis, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have said.
  7.30 pm
  I shall give an illustration. Some constituents of mine, who are not in the worst housing plight, came to see me last Saturday. They are a young couple who have been married for two or three years and have one child. They live with the wife's mother. The situation in the household is tense. They are high on the waiting list, but every time they go to the local neighbourhood office, they find that other people are higher. That is understandable because, presumably, other people are considered to be in greater housing need.
  The couple have been married for nearly three years and they have never had any accommodation of their own. They told me that, about 18 months ago, they considered buying a place but it was not possible then, let alone now. Theirs is not the worst case—far from it—but it illustrates some of the problems of people who are being punished and penalised, day in and day out, by the Government because they cannot afford a mortgage. What can they do? They can wait for years to be rehoused by the local authority. I am not exaggerating. Housing associations cannot help them, and it is a joke to mention the private rented sector to the people who come to my surgeries and who write to me about their housing problems.
  Why should our fellow citizens be penalised because they do not have the income to buy? I accept that they are a minority, but they are a sizeable minority. If we leave the main building here and turn right, we will find that a vigil is taking place opposite Downing street. It is a vigil for the homeless and I understand that it has been organised by Shelter. This Christmas, there will be more homeless people than in any year since the end of the war. That is certain. There will be more families in bed-and-breakfast hostels this Christmas than ever before. Imagine what it must be like to stay in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for the Christmas holiday and not to know when one will be rehoused.
  The Prime Minister likes photo-opportunities and she likes to be photographed in favourable circumstances. Will she visit a bed-and-breakfast hostel on Christmas day? Will the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State go to a hostel and see their fellow citizens living in squalid conditions because of the Government's policies? Nowadays one cannot go to a main line railway or
  898
  Underground station in central London without seeing young people with boards saying, "I am homeless". They are begging. They do not appear to me to be social victims in the sense of being drunkards. In the main they are young people who are encouraged to come to London by the Government. Once they are here, even if they find a job, they have no means of finding accommodation. That is the crisis that we have to deal with and to which the amendments refer.
  Many accusations can be made against the Government. One of the worst is that they have shown a callous disregard for people who are not able to solve their housing problems by buying. They have shown a callous disregard for people who desperately require rented accommodation. Had I been told before 1979 that there would be a substantial reduction in the rented sector, I would have found it almost unbelievable. I shall not go into the argument about whether it is right for local authorities to sell houses, as it is not a part of this debate, but it is only right and proper that when accommodation is sold it should be replaced. Yesterday, in a parliamentary answer, I was told that the number of local authority starts last year was approximately 13,000 and that it is likely to be even less this year. That is disgraceful and scandalous.
  I do not apologise for the fact that I have raised these issues in the House before and I shall continue to do so because the Chamber of the House of Commons is the right place to raise them. There is not much concern on the Conservative Benches. Ministers are well off. None of them has ever suffered the indignity of being without accommodation. None of them understands what it means not to be able to resolve housing difficulties. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) may mutter as much as he likes—Ministers do not understand the problems that I am trying to explain to the House.
  I say again that it is scandalous that our fellow citizens should have to spend Christmas or any other time in the conditions that I have described. That is why we are right to object to the Bill. It is the duty and responsibility of Labour Members to explain what is happening at every opportunity, in the House and outside, and to point out the indifference that the Government show to the homeless and near-homeless in Britain.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: What will be the effect on the housing revenue account of the Rent Officers (Additional Functions) Order 1989—a statutory instrument which was shoved through the House in the early hours of the morning without any publicity? I honestly believe that it is the most nasty, vindictive piece of legislation that I have seen go through in all the time that I have been in the House.
  The statutory instrument will affect the housing revenue account. It means that the rent rebate system for poor people will not be based on the rent of their dwelling, but will be calculated by a rent officer. He will decide how much of that dwelling can be taken into consideration for rent rebate. There is a formula. For example, if Mr. and Mrs. Bloggs, a married couple, are living together, it will be one room plus a little bit. Aged couples will wonder what will happen when one of them unfortunately passes away. How much increase in rent will the survivor have to face because of the reduction in rent rebates?
  I concede that Ministers have not understood the implications for housing revenue accounts if some local authorities meet the cost of such a shabby statutory

  899
  instrument. The House may recall that what were National Coal Board houses were sold off to Mickey Mouse landlords, or racketeers. The houses are in the private sector now, and they will be caught by the statutory instrument. Again, there will be implications for HRAs. High rents are being charged on some of the estates of ex-NCB houses, and when tenants are entitled to a rent rebate, someone has to find the cost of the rebate. Under the old system, the Government met the cost. Under the new system, the burden is borne by local authorities' HRAs.
  Some of the ex-NCB houses were defective and came within the terms of the Housing Defects Act 1984. In accordance with that legislation, local authorities had a duty to repurchase. Some houses are now owned by local authorities and will not be subject to the statutory instrument, but others are in the private sector. Any responsible local authority would not take the decision lightly that for some dwellings on privately owned estates it should have to find the difference between the provisions of the rent rebate system and the system that applies under the statutory instrument. The local authority can use the HRA, or rent rebate can be reduced to the extent that the rent officer becomes involved. In any event, money will have to be found from capital accounts.
  Have Ministers ever considered tenants on private estates of the sort to which I am referring? It seems that they have not. There will be chaos on some estates. One local authority may take a sympathetic view and use its HRA, while the adjoining authority will not. That cannot be just. It cannot be fair.
  Many tenants have been thrown to the wolves by the policy of the Government and British Coal. Many tenants do not know who their landlords are. These people will not have the protection that is enjoyed by local authority tenants. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he has any plans to alleviate the problems of former British Coal estates.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. John Fraser: The Government's proposal that there should be a ring fence around the income and expenditure of local authorities' housing revenue accounts has been discussed for about a year. I do not have any great objection in principle to having a ring fence around an HRA providing four conditions are met. First, as a result of ring fencing, the rents that will be paid by tenants must be reasonable, and by "reasonable" I mean affordable by the sort of people for whom the accommodation is designed, the sort of people who will occupy the accommodation that is provided by the local authority. Secondly, the system which is devised must be fair and reasonable.
  Thirdly, the system must not inhibit good management and repair policies. It must not stand in the way of a local authority ensuring that its estates are well managed, and in inner city areas good management is not an easy task. Repairs must be of a high standard and performed quickly, to the satisfaction of tenants. Fourthly, the deficit which results from the first three objectives—there will inevitably be a deficit in places such as Lambeth and Southwark—must be met by the taxpayer instead of the ratepayer. That would be welcome in the borough within
  900
  my constituency, where the burden that is placed upon ratepayers generally to subsidise the HRA is a pretty heavy one.
  My fourth condition is not an unreasonable one, because it would not cost the Government very much money. It would not cost them more than a few hundred million pounds to make up the deficit, and that is a fleabite compared with the £4,000 million or £5,000 million that is paid out each year by taxpayers generally to support the cost of the mortgage interest relief scheme.
  Does the system that is being introduced meet the criteria that I have outlined? In my view, it does not. My first criterion is that rents should be reasonable for those who are likely to occupy the accommodation that is provided. We know from an amendment that the Government introduced on Report that the level of rents which they propose for local authority dwellings should be related between authorities to the prices that are obtained when houses are sold under the right-to-buy scheme.
  It is comparatively easy to predict the relativities of rents between one part of the country and another. There is not much variation between the comparative prices of houses being sold under the right-to-buy scheme between one area and another and house prices generally. For example, we know that in Rossendale the cost of a house for a working-class family will be about £15,000 to £20,000. There are some who will be able to buy a terraced house for rather less than that. In Lambeth, which is within my constituency, or Wandsworth, which is the borough that the Minister used to represent when he was a councillor, the capital cost of housing is about three or four times higher than in somewhere such as Rossendale, Burnley or Bury.
  We can deduce from those relativities that, if £20 or £15 a week is the right sort of rent in Burnley or Rossendale, the comparative rent based on right-to-buy figures within Lambeth, Wandsworth or Southwark will be £60 or £80 a week. That, however, is not the market rent. If market rents are to be charged for local authority accommodation, which may be the long-term effect of housing action trusts, in my part of London, rents would be between £100 and £200 a week. That can be checked easily by looking through the local paper, the Evening Standard or Loot. They are not exaggerated market rents. Those two sets of figures illustrate the comparison between one part of the country and another. Ring fencing and the Government's formula for gradually increasing local authority rents will lead to rents in a borough like mine being pushed beyond the means of the people for whom the housing was designed.
  Secondly, is the proposed system fair? As other hon. Members have said, because of changes in the housing benefit system, ring fencing will mean that some council tenants will pay more rent to subsidise their poorer neighbours—the reverse of the previous system. Poorer tenants will subsidise the poorest in the housing revenue account. That is a strange system.
  In Belgravia, people pay more rent because they live next door to rich people. In Hampstead, people pay more for their houses for the same reason. In Pimlico, Chelsea and other areas, the values of property and the rents that people are prepared to pay are often greater because of the affluence in which they live. In an odd reversal of that position, in poorer parts of the metropolis, on the other side of London, poorer tenants will pay more because they live next door to the poorest tenants. They will pay

  901
  towards the cost of their neighbours' housing benefit because of changes in the social security arrangements and the new system of ring fencing.
  Thirdly, will the new system satisfy the test of more adequate provision for repairs and management? I have a quarrel with many local authorities. Often—I have to say that to protect myself against anyone who says that this is not true of their local authority—rents are low, but the quality of housing management and repair is also low. If I had to make a choice between a slightly higher rent with better management and repairs and lower rents with poorer management and repairs, I know what I would choose. I should prefer to pay a little more rent to have a little more quality.
  In some housing authorities people tell me that the rents are very high. When I ask about the rents for housing association property in the same area, they tell me that they are much higher. One deduces that a huge crush of people must want to move from housing association properties into local authority properties. However, when the transfer applications are examined, it is often found that that is not the case. People do not mind paying more in return for higher quality.
  The problem is political as well as financial. Often it is politically difficult to defend the case for putting up rents. Sadly, there is often resistance to increasing rents a little to spend more on repairs. Nothing in the Bill will make it easier to do so. Ring fencing will drive up rents to pay for the reduced subsidy. If local authorities want to follow my suggestion to increase rents, with tenants' consent to raise money for better repairs, they will find that they have been pre-empted.
  If rents in Lambeth have risen from £20 to £60 a week to pay both for eliminating the subsidy to poorer tenants who will lose benefits and for the costs of administering housing benefit, there will be no margin to allow an extra pound or two on the rent to pay for good management. Indeed, the converse will happen. Councils will be under pressure to reduce spending on repairs and management because tenants have already swallowed enough rent increases. That is why the amendments are important. In setting notional rents, the Government need to take account of the effect of their proposals on management and repairs.
  About two thirds of the cases raised with me in my constituency relate to housing problems. I do not have a monopoly on that. At the end of my Friday night advice sessions, I despair about what I can do to help my constituents. The same kind of cases come up time and time again. Sometimes a husband and wife or partners may live with their two children in a bed-sit. What kind of privacy or life can they have in such accommodation? Such cases are not isolated. Many such families come to me within the same evening and ask, "What are the Government doing about it?"
  There was a time when Ministers genuinely cared about housing problems. They thought that we in the Labour party had got it wrong and that their new formulae would get it right. There was a honeymoon period when we gave them credit for their intentions, if not for their achievements. Because of the direction of housing policy and the removal of subsidy from local authority housing, when people ask whether the Government care, I have to
  902
  reply, "They don't care if you die of despair. They don't care if they are driving you into inner-city concentration camps without any hope or prospect of bringing up a family in dignity." Many poorer people in the community, who rely on their local authority for housing, cannot avoid reaching the conclusion that that is the Government's attitude.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said. Like him, I see many people at my surgery who are in a desperate housing plight. As a result of the Government's policies, there is virtually nothing that I can do for them. I also agree with him about ministerial attitudes.
  The amendments are about housing revenue accounts and rents. I wish to deal with the serious implications for Waltham Forest. I know that there are similar problems in other hon. Members' areas but I have the provisional figures for my area which I want to share with the House and the Minister. I am not sure that he is aware of the serious implications in my area for rents, capital investment, repairs and the local authority's ability to tackle homelessness, which is an immense problem. All the available accommodation in my area is taken up by the homeless, so that there is little movement of other people on the waiting list, even if they are in dire need.
  Withdrawal of housing subsidy according to the Government's guidelines will mean a loss of about £4·7 million to Waltham Forest. That will mean a rent increase of 21 per cent. with effect from 1 April next year. To that will have to be added the cost of unsubsidised management, and maintenance costs, inflation, charges from the current year and provision for bad debts, which the Government have not taken into account in their notional figures. The actual figures will be greater than the notional figures set by the Department of the Environment. That is another £3·75 million, which pushes up the rent rise to 38 per cent. In addition, there is a shortfall on the capital account, which again arises out of the Bill and which must be met by the housing revenue account so that the capital books can be balanced. It is another £7 million in Waltham Forest, which pushes the rent rise up to 70 per cent. Why must there be such a rise in rents under the Bill? Even if it were 20 per cent.—although 70 per cent. is more likely—it would not be in line with inflation, which is much lower. It is between three and 10 times the rate of inflation. What is the justification for that ?
  8 pm
  The Government proclaim that fighting inflation is their top priority. If so, why are they pushing through a measure that will have such an impact on rents? Does the Minister really understand the implications of the Bill, especially as they affect tenants? If not, the Government should urgently review the Bill. If they do, they are effectively saying they do not care a fig about the problems that the Bill will create.
  The figures that I have for the capital account for 1990–91 show an HIP allocation for the borough of £10 million, and that is being optimistic. If we add to that capital receipts of £6 million, the total resources amount to £16 million. That is only half the 1989–90 resources. The Bill provides three main reasons for that. First, councils cannot use the previous year's capital receipts. Secondly, they cannot use their prescribed receipts—that is, the

  903
  right-to-buy money—for repairs as opposed to major investment. Thirdly, 75 per cent. of the right-to-buy money cannot be used for investment; it must be used to repay past debts.
  The capital programme was set about a year ago, so it cannot simply be cut. It includes mandatory grants in excess of £ 1 million and contractually committed schemes, which are unavoidable without penalty, of £15 million. In other words, that £16 million is already committed. There are urgent 1989–90 schemes that Waltham Forest must fulfil, and they amount to another £7 million. There are only a few of them—for example, Northwood tower where there is serious structural and fabric disrepair. There is Cogan avenue, which is needed because Whitebeam tower has similar disrepair problems and 100 families must be decanted to Cogan avenue.
  Three housing association schemes are also included which are intended for people with mental and learning disabilities. Those crucial schemes must be fulfilled. That brings the capital programme to a total of £23 million, yet the resources available under the Bill will be only £16 million, a shortfall of £7 million.
  Will the Minister guarantee that the new system under the Bill will allow the same current level of investment to continue? The figures show that that will not be the case, but there will be cuts in capital investment of 50 per cent. or even more. The only way that that could be avoided is for the additional burden to fall on the rents, as I have already explained. What is the Government's intention? Do they really understand the impact on local authorities such as Waltham Forest? If they do not, they should review the Bill. If they do, they are cynically uncaring.
  The Bill has implications for the fight against homelessness. One method to deal with homelessness is leasing, and Waltham Forest has a programme to secure about 500 leases in three years. It is a central part of its strategy of avoiding the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, although other boroughs are forced to use that option. Waltham Forest should be congratulated on not putting people into bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and the leasing scheme plays a great part in that success. The Bill includes regulations that will penalise councils that swap short-term leases. If a council takes out a lease for more than three years, the total capital value of the lease is assessed and the amount that the local authority can then borrow is reduced by that amount. That is iniquitous.
  If a local authority leases a property for three years and then releases it, and then my authority, Waltham Forest, takes up that lease, the first authority's holding of the lease counts against the credit limit of Waltham Forest. Councils such as Conservative-controlled Westminster and Liberal-controlled Tower Hamlets have already taken up at least 300 properties in Waltham Forest. That will restrict Waltham Forest's right to lease homes in its own area.
  That is wrong. A local authority should be able to take out a lease for longer than three years. The homelessness problem will not be solved in anything like three years; it will take much longer to tackle it. Therefore, Waltham Forest is effectively being penalised for trying to sort out its homelessness without having to resort to bed and breakfast. Is the Minister really suggesting that Waltham Forest should use bed-and-breakfast accommodation? That would be the effect of the regulations.
  904
  I ask the Minister to review the position. The Government are doing precious little to tackle the problem of rising homelessness. At the very least, they should riot be imposing restrictions that will hamper the legitimate attempts of a local authority to tackle the problem. I ask the Minister seriously to consider those points.
  Mr. Redmond: I had not intended to make a speech but having listened to the Minister I felt that I must make a few comments. I am concerned that this Minister is no different from those who went before him in his attitude towards housing. The Government's hatred for the council house tenant is crystal clear, and it appears to increase each year. I used to think that the Government hated the miners more than anything else, but it now appears that they have turned their hatred towards the council tenant. Their policies are detrimental to a section in our society that requres cheap accommodation because they cannot afford to purchase in the private sector. I am a little worried that that hatred is blinding the common sense that should prevail in order to meet the needs of that section of our society.
  Since 1979 there has been no long-term planning for local authorities, never mind housing. For a housing authority to function properly it needs a long-term strategy. However, when the Government interfere with the money available to an authority, the needs of council tenants cannot be met successfully.
  The Minister talked about the fairness of the legislation and, in particular, of the group of amendments. I listened to him carefully, but I cannot see any fairness within the system. One thing is sure: when the Bill is enacted the council tenant will be a damn sight worse off than he or she is now. Compassion for and understanding of the needs of the council house tenant are in short supply.
  The Minister talked about the Government meeting a housing authority's needs, coming along with a pocketful of money and doling it out if the council proved that a need existed and that it had acted within the guidelines laid down by the Government. He cannot live in the same world that I live in. When Doncaster, like I am sure every other local authority, submits its housing investment programme, it usually finishes up with 50 per cent. of what it requires to meet its needs in the forthcoming year. However, the Government have seen fit to cut that allocation, which has a knock-on effect.
  The money from the sale of council houses is the tenants' money which should be invested in a local authority's housing stock. However, the Government appear to say one thing and do another. They have allowed housing authorities to spend only a percentage of capital receipts when all of it could have been spent to improve conditions for tenants.
  The Minister appeared unable to say what he thought a fair rent was. I do not know how long a piece of string is, but the Minister appeared unable to say any more than that rent increases would depend on this, that or the other. However, I have no doubt that rents will continue to escalate. It is no good the Minister saying that they will go no higher than inflation, or whatever. Experience shows that not to be true and that is a great pity.
  The Minister talked about fabrication versus repairs. He appeared to accept that the cost of installation of new window frames would form part of the HIP allocation but said that the cost of painting window frames would not, and that is a tragedy. Local authorities struggle like hell to

  905
  try to maintain their properties in a reasonable state of repair, but older properties require more money spending on them to ensure that they are maintained to a reasonable standard. Unfortunately, the money is not there to maintain them, so a gradual deterioration is taking place. It is a great pity that the Government will not provide money to invest in fabrication while authorities continue with their repair programme. Fabrication reduces the need for repairs. One-off repairs are a damn sight more costly than a fabrication programme, which can lead to savings in the long term. It is a tragedy that the Government are not interested in long-term solutions to housing problems.
  8.15 pm
  Between 1975 and 1979, when there was a change of Government, Doncaster council had 1,500 new starts a year. That figure dropped in 1979. Those new starts were made possible as a result of Government money and the Government's permission to borrow money to meet a need within the community where housing waiting lists were growing. Those 1,500 new starts comprised houses to meet the needs of large and small families and decent bungalows to meet the needs of our senior citizens. However, the ring fencing that the Minister talked about will stop investment in such bungalows, for which the need is escalating. As people in our community become older, they become more infirm and need suitable accommodation. I regret that the Government are treating the elderly with contempt.
  Doncaster, like many other authorities, provides accommodation for senior citizens from all sections of the community—private and public. Unfortunately, ring fencing means that the council house tenant is being asked to pay an increased rent to provide accommodation for the private sector, and that is wrong. Money should come not only from the Government but from the rates to provide accommodation to meet the needs of the elderly in our society. There is a complete lack of understanding about what will be needed in the future. It will be a great pity if the Government do not stop to reflect and then come back to the House with a sensible policy for that section of the community which they can view with pride.
  Yet again, the Government are trying to kid the public that they are providing something when they are not. When the public come to taste the fruits of that policy they will find that they are bitter fruits indeed. At the next election many Conservative Members will have cause to condemn their Ministers for not providing suitable and sensible policies which meet the needs of the community.
  Mr. Allen McKay: The Bill and the Government's attitude towards the Lords amendments suggest that they have launched a continuing attack on local government and all that it stands for. It would have been far better for the Government to be honest and to say at the outset that the Bill represented a continuation of their policy of moving all local authority housing into the private sector, with the possible exception of free sheltered accommodation.
  I should like a categorical statement from the Minister about what is meant by the proposals in the amendments concerning the housing revenue account, rents and rent rebates. I expect rents in my area to be forced up to £50, £55 or £60. The Government say that that is fine, because there is a system of rebates—which, over the years, has
  906
  caused problems that we are now gradually surmounting. According to the Government, a group of people who do not receive the rebates will bear the brunt of the attack.
  I cannot help but think that the Government's policy is to try to force that group out of their chosen status as council tenants, leaving them no alternative but to buy their houses. If the Government had made that clear, fair enough, but they have tried to cover it up.
  The reason for my continued opposition to the Government's ring-fencing policy is the fact that my authority ring fenced years ago, long before the Government ever thought of doing so. For years we have taken nothing from the rates to help with housing. Some of my colleagues in other authorities have said that we are wrong. Fair enough: they have their views, and we have ours.
  In my area council housing, by and large, has financed itself, but we always had a plan for housing development that was 10, 12 or 14 years in advance. We increased the rents of existing council houses to pay for the void during which no rents would be received for houses that were being built, and did not take the money from the rates.
  Under our system, elderly people could be moved out of three-bedroomed houses into bungalows, leaving the houses free for families. Under the Bill and the Lords amendments, housing benefit will be cut if the Government consider that the recipients are living in houses too large for them. If that happens, those people will of course turn to the local authority, hoping to be rehoused; but many houses have been sold. The Minister shakes his head, but what I have said is true, and we can prove it.
  Will ring fencing force tenants to pay for the rebates of other tenants? That is what was intimated by the previous Secretary of State. Will tenants have to pay for the rent arrears of others? That seems likely to me. If the Minister can refute what I have said, let him tell us from the Dispatch Box that every treasurer of every local authority who submits an account of rent rebates and arrears will continue to receive money under the present system.
  The Minister has talked of targeting subsidies, and has said that the Bill will make things simple. When a Minister in the present Government talks about making things simple, I immediately assume that he has found a way of saving money, for they never make anything simple unless there is something to be gained. Everything that the Government have said suggests that they intend to load council house tenants with the debts of others: the poor will pay for those who are poorer still, as my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) has pointed out.
  All that we want is for the Government to be honest about what they are doing and what it will mean. Will rents be raised by as much as I have suggested? Why should a housing account not pay for itself? When we accused the Government of centralising the rent scheme, they denied that they were doing so. The Minister, however, mentioned a minimum of 95p for each council house, which must mean that rents are to be controlled centrally. What is to stop a Minister—whatever his party—from increasing rents time and again without the local authority's permission? Will the 95p minimum and the £4·50 maximum be based in such a way that the authority will be left free to decide how to spend the money?
  If an authority is paying its way in council housing, as mine is, why should it have to put 95p on the rent if it does

  907
  not need that money? What authority has central Government to impose such a requirement on a council that has achieved what local government has wanted to achieve for years, and has managed to make council housing responsible for itself?
  Moreover, it is the houses that have paid for themselves—the houses whose rent has contributed to the "global" sum of the housing revenue account—that have been sold, although they are the seedcorn of the council housing system. Far from helping local authorities and their tenants, the Government are destroying a housing system that has lasted for years, for the sake of a purely ideological concept of house ownership.
  As the Minister knows, I agree wholeheartedly with home ownership. My local authority bought land and put in sewers and roads at the ratepayers' expense to ensure that those who wished to build could do so more cheaply than many others elsewhere. Houses were purpose built for sale. Much of what the Government have done, however, has ruined such policies, in my area and others, and I find that very sad.
  It is even sadder to know that some tenants will be paying through the nose—unless the Minister can tell us that that will not happen. I wish that he would say that all housing rebates will be paid as they are now rather than being taken from other tenants, and that rent arrears will not be paid by tenants either. Council tenants in my area should be crying out. There may be six houses in a row, four of which may have been sold. The others will be occupied by council tenants. In their rents those council tenants are paying, for example, for the grass to be cut in the gardens of the other four houses.
  If the Bill is passed, as I expect it will be, my local authority will have to look again at what belongs to housing and what belongs to rates. If the Minister honestly and truly looks at the position, I am sure that he will acknowledge that council house tenants are being imposed upon. He will then come to the Dispatch Box and say exactly what is to happen. Our council house tenants will have to pay for the rebates of others. They will also have to pay for the rents of other people. We should be given the answer to that question. Council house tenants ought to be able to decide what their future is to be.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Pike: I have waited for some time to take part in the debate. I did so quite deliberately because I had expected to hear contributions to the debate from a few Conservative Members. It is surprising that no Conservative Member has taken part in the debate on these important Lords amendments and the amendments that have been proposed to them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) spoke about housing subsidy for those in receipt of benefit. He also referred to ring fencing. I listened carefully to the Minister's interventions during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). Whenever the Minister was pressed on those issues, he changed the question that my hon. Friend had asked and gave the answer that suited him. At no stage did he answer the questions that were put to him. Every time that the Minister rose to his feet, which he did several times, he deliberately changed the question because notes were being pushed at him. We want to be convinced that at no stage will the poorest tenants who are
  908
  able to pay their rents and other council house tenants be asked to meet part of the housing subsidy that is to be given to those who need it. Do the Government intend to meet the shortfall that arises from any additional burdens that local authorities have to bear as a result of the proposed changes?
  Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend knows that the Bill, as drafted, clearly states that the poor will have to subsidise the poorest through the housing benefit system. The Minister got himself into trouble when he said that any difference would be made up by the taxpayer. He had to retreat from that position during the series of interventions that my hon. Friend has rightly identified. We need to know whether the Government's intention is to make people pay for the housing benefit of others in the area, or whether the taxpayer will have to pick up that bill.
  Mr. Pike: That is an important point. If the Bill becomes an Act, it is what the legislation says that will count, not what the Minister says. If the Minister meant what he said—that the taxpayer, not council tenants, will meet the bill—that must be spelt out clearly in the legislation. Even at this late stage an amendment ought to be tabled to make that clear.
  The Bill has been altered at every stage. I was not a member of the Committee, but I know that the Bill was altered in Committee. It was considerably altered on Report and it was almost completely redrafted in the other place. If the Bill is still not right at this stage, the Government must get it right. We need to know whether the Minister's original statement was correct—that taxpayers will have to bear the cost, not council house tenants.
  It is regrettable that local authorities have been made to bear the burden of administering housing benefit. They were never fully recompensed for their work. The burden was shifted from the Department of Social Security to the local authorities. They had to carry out the Government's dirty work.
  The Government have deliberately discriminated against those who want to live in rented housing, particularly in council houses. They have encouraged people to buy their homes, a point that has been made on several occasions during the debate. In 1979 the Government's subsidy to the housing revenue account in Burnley was £1·6 million. That was rapidly eroded, over a period of two years, to zero, and it has been at zero ever since. Furthermore, housing factor E7 in the grant-related expenditure assessment is affected if councils do not increase rents in accordance with the Government's wishes. We want council tenants to be given a fair deal. If the Government are not prepared to do what we wish them to do, council tenants will, once again, be unfairly penalised.
  A person who is buying his house gets tax relief, whatever his income. If he is paying tax at the higher rate, his tax relief will be at the higher rate, subject to the £25,000 limit. His position has to be compared with that of a council tenant. I hope that the Government are prepared to accept that they have made a mistake. They ought to make a concession to council tenants and treat them fairly and equitably. However, the Government do not believe in fairness and equity, so I shall not be surprised if they are not prepared to go down that road.

  909
  We deal with capital receipts in one of our amendments to the Lords amendment. It would enable councils, if they so wished, to use capital receipts for repairs. It is important that we should allow local authorities the right to do that. I have never agreed with the way in which the Government imposed restrictions on the use of capital receipts through the 20 per cent. factor and I certainly do not believe that they should now prevent them from being spent on repairs. If they do that, there will be an immediate shortfall on the housing revenue account. Local authorities either will have to put the rents up even more to ensure that important repairs are carried out, or, worse, the repairs will not be carried out and there will be a further deterioration in our housing stock.
  The Government should be concerned that in the past 10 years there has been a deterioration in public and private sector housing. We do not have a housing crisis. We have a number of housing crises which have all been created by the Government.
  When I was a local council member I did not agree that capital receipts should be used for repairs to council property. However, I strongly believe in local government and I believe that local government should have the ability to take such a decision. That is the fundamental difference between the two sides of the House. Although we might not always agree with what local authorities choose to do, we certainly believe that they have the right to choose. I believe that that money should not be used in that way, but I might be in a minority. Nevertheless, that is the view I took when I was on a local authority. However, I recognise that, due to further reductions in their HIP allocations, pressure to increase rents by other measures has forced local authorities to consider that option. They have no alternative. I do not blame local authorities, as I recognise why they have been forced into that position. I stopped being leader of Burnley council in 1983 and the situation has continued to worsen year by year. I appreciate why local authorities have had to do that.
  I hope that the Minister recognises the importance of our amendment. If the Minister does not want to force up rents to totally unacceptable levels, if he does not want council houses to deteriorate and the housing stock to worsen, and if he is a reasonable man, he should agree with it. I wait to be surprised some day by a positive response from the Government. I hope that tonight the Minister will choose to surprise me.
  The Government must recognise that the further turning of the screw on local authorities, and particularly on council tenants, is becoming increasingly unacceptable. If they believe that council tenants will support them in the next general election, they are sadly mistaken. The categories of people to whom they can appeal for support will dwindle as they increase the numbers of people that they attack.
  I hope that the Minister has taken note of the points that have been raised by my hon. Friends. We have had a constructive debate, although no Conservative Member has contributed to it. I assume that either Conservative Members are not interested in council tenants, particularly those on housing benefit, or that they accept our argument and hope that the Minister will respond favourably. Perhaps they will join us in the Lobby. I hope that the Minister responds positively and at least meets my two
  910
  specific points by ensuring that council tenants do not have to pick up the tab for any housing benefit payable to the poorest among them, as that would be wrong and unacceptable. I hope that he also recognises the importance of ensuring that capital receipts can be used to maintain and repair council housing stock.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I hesitated before I stood up because I saw the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) poised in his seat and, in view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said about the lack of speeches by Conservative Members, I thought that we would hear from the hon. Member for Harrow, West.
  I have a programme from the Institute of Housing, Northern Counties. There is to be a conference called, "Housing—Moving into the Nineties". It is to be held on Wednesday 8 November. That is tomorrow. There will be an official opening of the conference and an opening address by a Mr. R. Hughes, MP, who, as we all know, is the hon. Member for Harrow, West. He is the parliamentary consultant to the Institute of Housing. I was hoping for a little taster of his opening address. Unfortunately, I cannot make the conference tomorrow, but I shall be speaking there on Thursday when I shall be talking about the Local Government and Housing Bill, so I shall have to rely on an accurate report of what the hon. Member for Harrow, West will have said about housing following the debate tonight and the passing of the Bill.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman can assist me; he is taking so long over the preamble to his speech. Is there any chance that I will be able to get away from the House after the votes to catch my plane at 8.30 am tomorrow?
  Mr. Banks: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, but I will certainly urge my hon. Friends to make way as speedily as possible so that we can hear the learned words of the hon. Member for Harrow, West. I suspect that he will catch his plane quite comfortably and will be able to say what small contribution he made to the debate this evening. It is certainly far more substantial than that of any other Conservative Back Bencher so far, so perhaps that is to his credit.
  The Opposition amendment (a) to the Lords amendment is designed to ensure that, before the Secretary of State makes a determination with regard to the amount of allowance he is to make in calculating housing revenue account subsidies for 1990–91, he has regard to the likely changes which will result from such a determination. We raised many of our arguments in Committee, but we have to return to them here, because, as we see it, the new financial system which will be introduced as a result of the Bill is designed to give the Secretary of State even greater power over the affairs of local authorities.
  There seems to be no small part of local authority activity over which central Government do not wish to exercise some form of control. In many ways it is yet a further nail in the coffin of local democracy and accountability. I cannot understand why so many Conservative Members, including the Under-Secretary of State, who have a background in local government are prepared to connive at the unwinding of local democracy throughout the country. This is only one aspect of it—the further control over the housing revenue account, making

  911
  sure that there can be no discretionary payments from general rate income into the housing revenue account. We know what will happen. Either rents will go up alarmingly, or the standard of repairs and maintenance will fall from fairly lamentable levels, at least in London.
  I cannot understand why Conservative Members with so much background in local government are prepared to go along with this. I understand that all things are now done in the name of the Prime Minister and that all decisions emanate downwards from No. 10 Downing street. She has no background, feeling or taste for local government. She seems to have a total abhorrence of it. However, I should have thought that one or two Conservative Members would be prepared to say to the Prime Minister, "This has gone too far. You are destroying the local democratic structures of the country and creating a social and economic crisis, particularly in the inner cities, that will be appalling for the country and even more disastrous for the fortunes of the Conservative party at the next election."
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that he is acting on an assumption that may be incorrect? Is it not possible that many of the hon. Members to whom my hon. Friend refers will have gone into local government not with a sense of enthusiasm for its place in the country but with a mission to minimise it or, in some cases, disrupt it? That may sound cynical, but in my experience it is possible.
  Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend has a good point. Some hon. Members on both sides of the House have used local government as a jumping-off board for a career in Parliament. They are the careerists that we know are among us, and lamentably they are not wholly confined to the Conservative Benches.
  When I was elected to the House in 1983, it did not even occur to me that I should stand down as a member of the Greater London council. I acknowledge the debt that I owe to the GLC for training and teaching me about local government and for being an example to the country of how an efficient local authority can be run. It brought a great deal of credit not only to the Labour party but to local government generally through the policies that it pursued. I acknowledge that debt and will continue to pay for it.
  I am one of those who never forget an insult. Local government in this country has been insulted by Conservative Members and a council has been destroyed. If nothing else, that will keep me in politics because I want revenge. The old saying "Don't get angry, get even" runs through my political psyche and will continue to do so. I want to see Tory blood on the walls and on the carpets. It will be running thick through County hall and through the county halls and town halls of the country. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for sparking me off on a subject about which I feel strongly. I did not use local government.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Now that the hon. Gentleman has got that off his chest, perhaps we can return to Lords amendment No. 112.
  Mr. Banks: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I got carried away by the moment. Feelings are running high on the Opposition Benches.
  912
  I thought—and I still believe—that some Conservative Members enjoyed being in local government, thought that it contributed a great deal to democracy and that it underpinned parliamentary democracy in many respects. I cannot understand how those right hon. and hon. Members can now agree to a further dismantling of local government.
  We are dealing with the problems that will arise in the housing revenue account and the maintenance of local authorities' housing stock because of the Bill. When my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), in his excellent speech, talked about the homelessness crisis in London, the Under-Secretary of State, a former leader of Wandsworth borough council, was shaking his head in disagreement as if my hon. Friend's speech was being made up on the spur of the moment from his fevered imagination rather than from factual evidence.
  Anyone who knows anything about London will realise just how appalling the housing crisis is. One only has to leave the House, perhaps on the way to a reception to which hon. Members are constantly invited, and walk along the Embankment to see people sleeping in the boxes of the cardboard cities. If one goes to an excellent concert at the Festival hall, the Queen Elizabeth hall or the Purcell room—they were built, paid for and excellently maintained by the London county council and the GLC—one will see homeless young people. Surely one or two Conservative Members still have a heart and a conscience after 10 years of serving Polly Pot in No. 10. Surely they will feel a twinge of conscience when they see what is going on. We are not making any of this up. The crisis is real. Homelessness in London has doubled since the Prime Minister took office in 1979.
  Mr. Pike: I recognise the problem of homelessness in London. I wonder whether my hon. Friend realises that, due to the benefit changes that have taken place this year, homelessness is occurring in many towns where it never existed. Many bed and breakfast hostels are being closed because the amount of benefit being paid to them no longer enables them to remain open and provide even minimum accommodation. The problem does not exist only in London and the big cities but now covers the length and breadth of Britain.
  Mr. Banks: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I have a cutting that I was going to introduce later but I will introduce it now as it is apposite. It comes from The Sunday Correspondent this week. It is on the back of the two pages containing that weird interview with the Prime Minister. There is an even weirder picture—she has clearly lost her marbles. Page four says:
  "Patten acts on cardboard cities."
  The two points are closely linked. When they were changing the social security regulations we warned the Ministers about what would happen. We pleaded with them, but they said they were just scare stories and alarmism that the Minister said could be expected from us. However, the facts are in the newspaper. It says:
  "Homeless school-leavers may again be allowed to claim social security as part of a Government campaign to stop them begging and sleeping rough. Action to cut the growing 'cardboard city' population in London and other towns by providing more hostels is to be announced later this month by Chris Patten, the Environment Secretary. It will form part of a wide-ranging review of homelessness…ministers have been forced to recognise that their virtual ban last year on social

  913
  security payments to unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds acts as a formidable deterrent to teenagers who might otherwise come in from the cold."
  A report this morning by Shelter, or SHAC, said that large numbers of youngsters were being forced into prostitution and drug trading because they were desperately trying to scrape together the money to exist on the streets of London.
  9 pm
  The hon. Member for Harrow, West played a good and useful part in the Greater London council. I cannot understand why he does not rant and rave at the Government, as I do from time to time. They do not listen to me, but they might listen to him, because he represents an authentic voice and is an expert on local authority housing. He has sat quietly and said nothing. I find that difficult to understand.
  Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend's point is made even more powerful by the fact that, until the GLC was abolished, 4,300 extra beds were available for youngsters and single homeless people. With the abolition of the GLC, those 4,300 beds went, and, with the abolition of the other metropolitan counties, even more beds went. That is why homeless people, particularly young people, are more vulnerable in London and other cities and, increasingly, in rural areas. We now find homelessness in Exeter, Bristol and other towns where we never found it before. As I said, in 1979 I could always get someone a roof over his head. Nowadays, I cannot do that.
  Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend makes a good point. All over the country, the Government's policies are inevitably leading to greater homelessness. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith could say that so-called care in the community, which has meant that many people have been turned out of long-stay mental institutions, has caused distressed people to go wandering on to the streets.
  I must continue to refer to London. Other hon. Members can make their own points about their own cities, but I know a little about London. In recent years I have noticed that two categories of people have suddenly appeared on the streets of London. The first category is the young. They are on the streets because of changes in social security provision and unemployment. They are being forced to move around, like an army of the dispossessed, from one cardboard city to another and from one railway arch to another.
  The other category includes the many more people who are mentally incapable of looking after themselves. They have been turned out of long-term mental institutions and, in many cases, put into the so-called community, which means that their own families, who might be hard-pressed in terms of their living, social and environmental conditions, cannot manage. That creates more problems in the homes to which these people go. It may mean that they are told, "Sorry, we cannot look after you any more," and are pushed out into the street. Those two categories of people include the most appalling and dramatic statistics that we have seen for several years.
  Mr. Soley: It is extremely important that Conservative Members should understand the causes of those problems. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that income support changes are crucial. Obviously, unemployment
  914
  also had a part to play. However, the other crucial factor for young people is the catastrophic decline in council house building and, at the same time, the drying up of the private rented sector. The very sector that the Government said would expand has contracted. There are 500,000 fewer houses and flats available for rent in the private rented sector than there were before, precisely because the Government pushed people to buy rather than to rent.
  Mr. Banks: As ever, my hon. Friend is correct. One does not need a PhD in housing administration to work out that, if we create a situation in which local authorities are not allowed to build any council houses, there will be an upsurge in homelessness. It is obvious. I should have thought that it was well within the intellectual grasp of Conservative Members to work that out.
  I do not need rhetoric to argue the case. We need only to examine the statistics. A good article in "City Limits" coincided with the week-long protest against homelessness in London. If the Prime Minister would venture out of her bunker in No. 10 Downing street—the railings are not there yet, but no doubt she will have them erected at some stage; I bet that she will manage to get out every day even with the railings there—and go to the other side of Whitehall, she will see the young people and others who are involved in a vigil there. Why does she not talk to them and listen to them? I do not think that she listens to anybody. She would want to tell them how to tidy up their cardboard boxes to make them look more comfortable. She would say, "Wouldn't it look better if you cut a few holes and put up chintz curtains?" If she were to listen for a while, she would know a little more about what is going on in the streets of London.
  The facts in "City Limits", which were taken from statistics provided by Shelter, the London research centre, and the Association of London Authorities, clearly show us the picture. The article states:
  "In September 1987 there were 18,906 people living in temporary accommodation in London. By March 1989 there were 24,578, an increase of 30 per cent."
  Homelessness has more than doubled since 1979. The article continues:
  "By the beginning of 1989 over 106,000 council properties had been sold to their sitting tenants. Until the end of 1987, some 30,000 had sold up and moved on.
  In 1975 local authorities started building 20,100 new homes."
  That is in London.
  In 1986, the figure was 1,200. The key to this whole issue is that in the mid-1970s local authorities in London were building about 25,000 new units of accommodation per year. They are now building about 1,500 per year. That is one of the main keys to homelessness in this country. As I said, one does not need a PhD or even a CSE to work out that statistical correlation.
  The article continues:
  "In 1988 30,000 people were squatting in London."
  There were 2,000 people sleeping rough in central London.
  "London boroughs spent almost £88 million on bed and breakfast accommodation in 1988–89. In 1981, the figure was £4·3 million.
  As we in Newham will be affected by this appalling Bill, I can tell the House that we have moved on from the appalling situation in 1981 when we had nine families in a hostel because in January 1989 we had 1,151 families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, non-secured lettings, private leasings and hostels. Whereas we were spending a

  915
  few thousand pounds in 1980–81 on bed-and-breakfast charges in the London borough of Newham, last year we spent £5·2 million.
  We cannot afford that waste of resources. We should be putting people into decent homes, and for £5·2 million we could build a lot of them. This is craziness. It is the economics of the madhouse which, I suppose, is where the Prime Minister will end up. It is cheaper to build new units of accommodation than to house people in inadequate bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
  Ms. Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are several unique aspects to the problem of homelessness in London which the Government have signally failed to address in the past decade? The first is that the appalling cost of private rented accommodation and of private homes in London forces those on average wages to look to the public sector. Those people are suffering under the Government's policies and from their refusal to allow council house building.
  The second aspect is the appalling conditions in which many homeless people have to live in the bed-and-breakfast hostels that scar our capital. Hon. Members will remember the terrible fire at a bed-and-breakfast hostel in Bayswater many years ago. Many families are in danger of perishing because of the fire risks in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
  A further unique dimension—my hon. Friend has referred to this—is the millions of pounds that boroughs such as Hackney have to spend to keep people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
  Finally, it is impossible for those on low and middle incomes to find accommodation in the inner cities. That factor might appeal to Conservative Members because it is one reason why employers in the inner city encounter such huge problems in getting labour.
  Mr. Banks: I agree with my hon. Friend who emphasises the point that I am making from the "City Limits" article, which also states:
  "In Kensington and Chelsea, the average price for a home is now £167,000; luxury lettings are as high as £1,000 a week; some council rents are over £100 per week"
  People simply cannot afford those levels of rent. Surely Conservative Members can understand that. I do not know what happens in their advice surgeries—
  Ms. Abbott: They do not have any.
  Mr. Banks: I am sure that some of them do, but I should be interested to know why they do not seem to be affected by the evidence that must be brought before their eyes. I do not understand how people in my area can survive.
  Ms. Abbott: The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) is laughing.
  Mr. Banks: Yes, the hon. Gentleman seems to be laughing. I assume that he is not laughing at the plight of the homeless in London because, frankly, he should hang his head in shame as should every other Conservative Member who has ventured into the Chamber this evening.
  This is not a crisis that has been visited upon us by God because we are a sinful people; it is a crisis created by Government policies. Sometimes one can say that Opposition Members stir things up a bit and blame the Government for bad weather or whatever—and that might
  916
  be considered a little unreasonable—but on this occasion one can point the finger with unerring accuracy and say that the responsibility for the housing crisis in this country lies with the Government's policies. That is where the responsibility lies, and that is where we are determined that it will remain until these policies change.
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: I accept everything that my hon. Friend is saying about the crisis in London. I warn Conservative Members, lest they feel that it is a purely London matter and that they can be complacent on a national scale, that in Preston the homelessness situation is worsening rapidly. We have been able to avoid using bed-and-breakfast accommodation for some years. But tomorrow the local housing committee will be considering having to resume the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. In other words, it is a national problem.
  Mr. Banks: All local authorities are affected by this legislation. All council rents are likely to go up. It will become more difficult for all authorities to deal with the homelessness crisis. We have always been used to a degree of homelessness in London. Some people have always slept rough on the streets of the capital. That is a sad fact, but it is a fact. But it is now obvious that this depressing feature is spreading to cities throughout the country. More and more people are wandering the streets looking for somewhere to sleep at night. It is criminal of the Government to have inflicted that level of social misery on people.
  Mr. Spearing: Some Conservative Members will say that people are attracted to London and exacerbate the problem. Is my hon. Friend aware that in the south of Newham, in the borough which we both represent, half of my constituents live in municipal dwellings, but that due to the policies of the Government—introducing market rents bit by bit across the whole housing sphere—there will be no opportunity for the young people of Newham to obtain, own or in some way live in council accommodation? When recently I have told the members of residents associations about the Bill, saying that many would have to live in tents in Epping forest, they have not dissented from that statement. That is what the Government are forcing people to do.
  Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend, like me, is affected by the severe crisis in the London borough of Newham. I have not yet had an opportunity to describe in detail the situation that we face in Newham. We have tried to explain it to Ministers, but Ministers at the Department of the Environment come and go with bewildering regularity. I congratulate the Under-Secretary on being one of the few who has stayed the course, probably because he is so unnoticeable that the Prime Minister has not realised he is there. Perhaps anonymity in politics is sometimes useful. Alternatively, the right hon. Lady may know that he is such a ruthless Right-winger who is prepared to d o anything on instructions from No. 10 that she feels confident in having him in his present office. If that is so, I am surprised that he has not yet become Foreign Secretary. But given the number of shuffles we have each week, even he may end up as Foreign Secretary or as some other exotic figure of state.
  On Fridays at my advice surgery young people come to see me with their children and, having been put in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, wonder what the

  917
  future holds for them. For a number of reasons which I cannot fully understand, Newham is not a centre for hotels. We must move our people out to other parts of London, putting them in Westminister, Paddington, Ilford and Romford. Imagine the destruction that that inflicts on the family unit. The education of the children is disrupted and many of the people involved find it impossible to hold down a job.
  Those are the human realities behind the policies that are pursued ruthlessly and relentlessly by the Government. They do not seem to care. I can only assume that some calculation has been made to the effect that as the people about whom we are talking are so depressed over what is happening—struggling hard to survive on an hourly basis from morning to night—they do not provide any political threat to the Government.
  No hon. Members will have to sleep rough on the Embankment or go to the type of bed-and-breakfast accommodation that I have described; they will stay in decent hotels because the allowances are good. I know an awful lot of people in the borough of Newham who would like to receive the overnight allowances that are given to hon. Members who live outside London to enable them to have a decent dinner and a decent sleep. I do not object to Conservative Members having a decent dinner. They get many decent dinners—in many cases it is someone else's dinner and it is certainly paid for by someone else. Why should they vote for decent dinners and decent homes for themselves and deprive others of exactly those benefits? That smacks of hypocrisy, but that is what one associates with the Conservatives.
  9.15 pm
  I do not know how people are surviving in London or Preston on a daily basis. All I know is that the Opposition must stand up and fight for them because they cannot fight for themselves. No hon. Member has to suffer their deprivations, so we shall continue to speak for them even though, with the poll tax and the new regulations, more and more of those people are moving out of the political process altogether. That is why Conservative Members do not care. Those homeless people do not pose any political threat as voters to the fortunes of the Government. They are a threat to those fortunes, however, because the conscience of the nation has been aroused by their plight. We are able to articulate their plight in this place and we are able to campaign for changes not only in policies but, ultimately, in Government. It is only with a change in Government that the homeless of London, Preston, Burnley, Liverpool and elsewhere will have a decent chance.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: My hon. Friend is right that the situation is getting worse. Just after the war, when we were faced with the destruction of so many homes, the Government of the time, which happened to be Labour, gave hope to the people because they built council houses. I lived in two rooms for 12 years and I know about housing problems. At least we had the hope, however, that, sooner or later, we would get council accommodation. It so happened that I did not take up that accommodation. After the war we got all the people off the streets, apart from those who wanted to stay out there. After the war one only saw a few people living on the
  918
  streets. Now there is no hope. Masses of youngsters come to London from Liverpool and the like looking for jobs, but they end up under the arches or elsewhere. The indictment against the Government is that they have taken hope away from people.
  Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend speaks with great experience and wisdom. We know that it was Conservative and Labour local authorities that gave people the opportunity of a decent home. That chance has been destroyed and, as far as the Government are concerned, local authorities are rather like the trade unions, enemies within.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman as he is talking about an important subject. I have looked carefully at the amendments in this group, however, and I do not believe that a single word of the hon. Gentleman's speech, important though it may be, relates to those amendments.
  Mr. Speaker: I have been in the Chamber for 10 minutes and I do not believe that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is out of order as this is a pretty wide debate on housing. The hon. Gentleman should look at the amendments, however, and ensure that his comments relate to them.
  Mr. Banks: I have kept the amendments under my thumb all the time. I have made sure that I stayed in order and I wait for you, Mr. Speaker to decide when I am out of order rather than the hon. Member for Harrow, West. That hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the things I said about him and his contribution to local government, has chosen not to intervene positively in this debate even though he has had ample opportunity to do so.
  The Opposition amendments will ensure that the Secretary of State takes into account the impact of the proposed changes in the Bill on rents and housing maintenance before he makes any determination. Those amendments must be illustrated and that is what I have been doing by showing what effect the Bill will have in areas like Newham.
  No doubt the hon. Member for Harrow, West feels very uncomfortable. He knows that I am speaking the truth. It must be a very uncomfortable experience for him to hear the truth. He must be feeling very guilty, despondent and ashamed, and so he should.
  Mr. Soley: The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) emphasised that this debate is about the housing revenue account. He is right. Under this group of Lords amendments local authorities will not have to keep a housing revenue account. As I said in my opening speech, if they do not keep the account, what will happen to the homeless?
  Mr. Banks: That is precisely the point. The hon. Member for Harrow, West knows a bit about this. I hope and trust that he will have a very difficult time tomorrow when he tries to act as a craven apologist for the Government's policy on housing when he talks to housing experts.
  In Newham, we have tried desperately to advise Ministers about the likely impact of the Bill and why our amendments to Lords amendment No. 119 should be accepted to ameliorate the position. We have taken several

  919
  Ministers around Newham and our last briefing was for the current Minister for the Environment and Countryside. We are grateful for the opportunity to talk to Ministers. We would sit down with the devil himself—and we did in terms of the previous Secretary of State for the Environment. My hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South and for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and I want to get the best deal possible for Newham. The problems in our borough are bad and they will be made so much worse by the Bill if it is not amended tonight.
  Newham has the highest number of unsatisfactory dwellings of any London borough. Those dwellings are unfit and lack basic amenities. There is a severe shortage of dwellings in Newham and we have the fastest increase in homelessness in London. I have told Conservative Members just how dramatically that has increased over the past four or five years. Newham also has more dwellings lacking inside WCs and baths than any other London borough and the highest proportion of dwellings lacking facilities in England. Fifty-five per cent. of the borough's housing was built before the first world war, and 80 per cent. of the private sector stock is of the same age. It is estimated that the total cost of repairing the private sector stock is £328 million. The proportion of unfit private properties increased from 21 per cent. in 1979 to 36 per cent. in 1985 while in London as a whole the proportion fell from 10 per cent. to 6 per cent.
  There is also severe overcrowding in Newham, a problem that is suffered disproportionately by ethnic minority households. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South knows more about the public sector than I. In that area, Newham has a specific problem with 107 tower blocks of more than eight storeys. Many of those blocks suffer from structural problems or have reached an age when services need renewing. Nine complete tower blocks in south Canning Town in the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South are currently vacant. Others are being decanted and Ronan Point has been demolished.
  How on earth can we deal with those problems with the extra restrictions which this Bill will introduce? We just want to deal with the problems. We are not trying—[Interruption.] Clearly, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has had a very good dinner. I welcome her to our proceedings, although she has come very late.
  Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend mentioned Ronan Point and its sisters. Is he aware that the borough made strenuous efforts to fulfil the Government's objective of going into partnership with private firms to redevelop these areas so that people could afford the rents in the houses with gardens that would replace the thousand empty flats in the sky? However, the economics of housing and interest rates made that very difficult, even with the best will in the world. Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister to take account of that, because we have done our best to try to meet the Government's criteria? The sums just do not add up.
  Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend is right. Newham borough council has attempted to arrange partnership dealings with the private sector, and Ministers and civil servants from the Department of the Environment know that to be true.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Banks: We have tried everything and we shall try everything. We are so desperate that I will even listen to the hon. Lady, in case she says something sensible for the first time since she was elected.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman referred to a vast number of tower blocks. Why were they built? It so happens that I was vice-chairman of housing in the London borough of Camden. We inherited many tower blocks, both built and being built, but we did not build a single one during the time of our Conservative administration because we did not believe in them. The hon. Gentleman has been landed with the problem because he built the blooming things.
  Mr. Banks: I shall excuse the slight hint of hysteria because hysteria and lunacy are catching among Conservative Members. Because of cost yardsticks and because of requirements laid down by Conservative and Labour Governments, local authorities thought that tower blocks were the best way to meet their housing problem—
  Mr. George J. Buckley: The only way.
  Mr. Banks: Yes. I am no hack; I do not go around defending past decisions that I would not have supported. I was on Lambeth borough council when we were still being pressurised into building tower blocks, and I resisted that Labour council's attempts to construct more of them. They are not the sort of environment in which people should be placed.
  Wandsworth has sold some of its tower blocks. Such blocks can provide luxury accommodation, but that means swimming pools, porterage, security alarms and all sorts of facilities that no local authority would be allowed to put in. We could turn all our tower blocks, even though I do not like them, into small heavens on earth if we were given the resources by central Government—but will we get them, and will the hon. Lady help us to get them?
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Why not imitate what was done in part of Liverpool and go into partnership with the private sector? When we took over in Camden we housed exactly the same number of people per acre by building in six steps—two storeys, then another two and then another two—with lifts to alternate floors. In that way we housed the same number of people without the appalling way of life involved in tower blocks.
  Mr. Banks: I do not disagree. I have said that many decisions taken by Tory and Labour-controlled Labour authorities under Governments of both complexions are not defensible in retrospect. They were explicable and understandable, but they were indefensible in social terms. I am trying to deal with the problem that we haw inherited. It is no good the hon. Lady saying that we should not have built these blocks. Rightly or wrongly, we built them and now we have to try to deal with them. The problem is not only in Newham; it is found in Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, Glasgow and many other cities.
  It was not only Labour local authorities that built tower blocks; all local authorities built them. Apart from anything else, they were part of the fashion, and architects and planners wanted to destroy all the existing properties and start from a green field site and build vertical streets. I should like to get hold of some of those architects and planners, put them on the 22nd floor, nail the door and

  921
  leave them there for a few years to see what it is like. Architects, planners and developers do not live in such places; they just build them for other people to live in. They live in nice rural retreats deep in the country.
  9.30 pm
  I say to those people and to hon. Members that by all means they should have the good things in life, but they should not deny them to other people. That is precisely what the Government do day in day out with the sort of policies that they pursue. I have made my point about the amendments. The Minister should remember that we have not invented the housing crisis in London. It has been created by the policies of the Government. If the Government are not prepared to change those policies, they should go, and every homeless person will throw his hands in the air and cheer to the echo the end of this Government and their damnable policies.
  Mr. Chope: At times during the debate Opposition Members have been hysterical but I suppose they can be congratulated on demonstrating that they are still in quite good voice and capable of filibustering. The Opposition have certainly indulged in much bluster on the issue.
  I find it rather depressing that most Opposition Members have continued to repeat the misunderstandings and misrepresentations of Government policy. In Committee and subsequently, those Opposition views have been shown to be totally inaccurate. They are short of policies of their own and are therefore trying to attack policies that they are inventing and attributing to the Government. I assure the House that Government policy on these matters is very different from the policy that has been represented by the Opposition.
  We heard in the debate the familiar but false accusation about the rents policy. The Government do not intend to push council rents to market levels. We want only market-related patterns of rents. We are not interested either in capital value rents. It should be obvious from our proposals for 1990–91, with minimum increases of 95p and increases damped everywhere, that we are not seeking to establish market rents, except perhaps in areas where rents are very low.
  The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) said that we are seeking to control council rents. The hon. Gentleman interpreted our 95p guideline as the imposition of a 95p minimum increase whether or not councils want it. That is nonsense. The Bill explicitly allows authorities to determine their own budgets and they may set rents higher or lower than the guideline if they wish to budget for an appropriate level of service.
  The hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) failed to understand that their council tenants will benefit next year as a direct result of the Government's policies on rents. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said he thought that rents should go up next year by about £1·95. Opposition policy is that there should be the same increase everywhere. That is an absurd proposition and that is why we want to have the new system. Under that system the constituencies of
  922
  the hon. Members that I have mentioned will benefit. It is surprising that none of those hon. Members was able to recognise that during the debate.
  Rent rebates have also been mentioned tonight.
  Mr. Steinberg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Chope: If I have time, I shall try to answer some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made.
  We have also seen an extraordinary distortion of the Bill's provision for rent rebates. The hon. Member for Hammersmith persists in asserting that the better-off tenants will pay the rebates of their neighbours. This is nonsense, as has been said in earlier debates. We shall simply be proposing rent guidelines at sensible levels. Where an authority can meet the costs of those rebates, partly or in full, it is right for it to do so. However, most authorities will always require assistance from subsidy, and we can say categorically that if an authority gets its rents higher than the guidelines for any reason, then the higher cost of rebates will be met in full by our subsidy. Other tenants will not have to meet it.
  Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Chope: I will not give way. I gave way dozens of times.
  Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time, please.
  Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Chope: I am the first hon. Member to speak from the Government Benches for about four hours. I gave way many times during my opening speech, and I am sure that the hon. Member will understand that I have to reply to the points that have been made, and I am seeking to do that.
  Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Chope: No, I will not give way. The hon. Member spoke for 45 minutes and now wishes to deprive me of some of my time.
  The hon. Member for City of Durham was one of the many who got things completely wrong about rates rebates. I understand that he actually served on the Committee examining the Bill, so I can be less forgiving towards him than I might be towards an hon. Member who had not done so. The hon. Gentleman has asserted that the housing revenue account will have to bear 3 per cent. of the cost of rebates. He was wrong. Although the present rate of subsidy on rebates is 97 per cent., under the new system we shall take 100 per cent. of the cost of rebates into calculation of the housing revenue account subsidy.
  Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Chope: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman on this issue on more than one occasion during my earlier speech, and he is doing his Back-Bench colleagues a disservice in not allowing me to reply to some of the points that they have made.
  Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) knows that if the Minister does not give way, he must resume his seat.
  Mr. Chope: I see no purpose in mere repetition of points made earlier. The hon. Member intervened on two or three occasions and I gave him the answers about rebates on three occasions.
  Mr. Battle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have sat through debates in which we considered amendments from the other place, and I thought that the tradition was that we clarified the detail. In that case, if a Minister makes a statement, surely it is incumbent on him to allow us to challenge it, or it will not be questioned. Some of the Minister's remarks clearly demonstrate that he does not understand the Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know, as the House knows, that if an hon. Member, or a Minister, does not wish to give way, then those wishing to intervene must not persist in rising.
  Mr. Chope: I shall continue with examples of the way in which Opposition Members have this issue so wrong. The hon. Member for City of Durham asserted that Durham would have a negative subsidy entitlement. That is extremely unlikely. Negative subsidy entitlement arises only when, in the notional account, income from rents plus interest on receipts is more than expenditure on management and maintenance, loan charges and rent rebate. Try as I might, I cannot draw up a notional account for Durham in which that happens. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes away and does his sums again.
  The hon. Member for City of Durham made another point, about the shortage of resources for investment. If capital receipts have been used for genuine capital works, we have said that we will take that into account in housing investment programme allocations.
  Mr. Battle: When?
  Mr. Chope: Discussions are taking place at the moment on the housing investment programme allocations for the coming year. Those meetings are taking place at present.
  The hon. Member for City of Durham expressed fears about the lack of allocations. I suggest that before he makes such alarmist remarks he waits for the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member also asked about direct labour organisation profits. They should go to the general fund. If they are then transferred to the housing revenue account, that is another form of rate fund contribution. The ring fence will prevent such contributions, but—I do not think that the hon. Member understood this—subsidy will cover the gap caused by loss of those contributions so that there will be no extra rent increase as a result.
  Mr. Steinberg: Is that a guarantee?
  Mr. Chope: That is a guarantee. I have just told the hon. Gentleman how the new system will work. I find it depressing that so many Opposition Members, although they have served on the Committee, do not understand the way in which the new system will operate.
  Many right hon. and hon. Members have talked during the debate about the plight of homeless people. Homeless people, whether young or old, deserve better than to be used as pawns by the Opposition.
  The Opposition seem to will the end, but deny the means. They and their local authorities preside over tens of
  924
  thousands of empty council properties. They fail to collect rents from existing council tenants and thereby deprive the homeless of further resources.
  Mr. Battle rose—
  Mr. Chope: I shall not give way. The Government take seriously the plight of the young and the homeless in our major cities—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Chope: We have considered a number of reports about homelessness and the problems of the homeless while undertaking our review of legislation on the homeless. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to announce our conclusions shortly.
  Planned public investment in housing during the next three years will total nearly £13 billion. The thrust of our housing policy is aimed at helping areas with the greatest need, by extending the role and funding of housing associations and by expanding the private sector, which so many Opposition Members seem to despise. To tackle the important issue of the single homeless, we are encouraging people to take in lodgers.
  Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Chope: Furthermore, we are targeting resources on the greatest need. That is why we have made revisions to the new capital control system.
  The new housing revenue account system, which is the basis of the debate, will make local authorities more accountable to tenants, promote efficiency and encourage a fairer, better-targeted means of distributing taxpayers' money to those who need it. That is the best way to help the homeless.
  We have a genuine concern for the homeless. If Opposition Members were genuinely concerned, they would try to put something into action at a local level.
  Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the way that we conduct the proceedings of the House. We often hear things in the House with which we disagree, but we must listen.
  Mr. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely it would be common courtesy for the Minister to give way. He has been given the permission of the House to make a second speech in the debate and he should at least give way once.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that that is up to the Minister.
  Mr. Chope: I detect that the House is getting somewhat impatient to vote after such a lengthy debate. I think that we have won the argument, and that, from the Opposition, we have had fluster and filibuster.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Soley: With the permission of the House, I should like to make a short supplementary speech. I had not planned on making it. On Report, no fewer than 606 amendments were put before us. Many of them were introduced by the Government. For the Minister to fail to give way to my hon. Friends who wished to intervene in such an important debate is a sign of weakness, and it will

  925
  do him no good. I wished to raise the issue which he failed to deal with in his opening speech, which is that rentpayers in one area will subsidise the housing benefit of people in the same area. That means that the poor will subsidise the poorest. I refer to clause 78, which remains unamended after the Bill's consideration by another place. The Minister's predecessor and the previous Secretary of State for the Environment accepted that what we were saying was basically true although they would not accept the phrase—I understand why—"the poor subsidising the poorest". They accepted, however, that our argument was right.
  I shall try to quote as accurately as I can the Minister's words. He tried to slide them through quickly, but I shall repeat them to the best of my memory. We can check my recollection with the report in Hansard. He said, "If there is a surplus, they will have to use that to meet rent rebates." The surplus can accrue only from other people's rents. The Bill ring-fences accounts so that rents must be used only for housing. They cannot be used in any other sector. It is not possible to translate money from the rate fund to the rent fund.
  In other words, the rebate bill is met in part by using surplus rent money when there is some. The only way in which the Minister is partially right is that, when there is no surplus, that option does not arise. As soon as there is a surplus, however, the local authority has no option but to use it to pay the housing benefit bill. We say that that is a classic example of the poor subsidising the poorest. It was the Minister's failure to respond to that issue that led him into so much trouble.
  I understand why the Minister would not give way. I can interpret what he said thereafter only as that somehow the bill would be met. Is he giving the House a commitment that, where there is a surplus which must be used to meet the housing benefit bill, the Government will step in and pay the difference? If the Minister cannot answer that question, he either does not understand it or, more likely, he is deliberately trying to avoid the issue because he appreciates that it is embarrassing for the Government.
  Mr. Chope rose—
  Mr. Soley: I shall give way to the Minister.
  Mr. Chope: There is no dispute among my right hon. and hon. Friends. If there is a surplus, it will be taken into account when it comes to a subsidy. If there is a surplus on the housing revenue account, it is likely that there will be less subsidy entitlement than if there is not. I thought that Opposition Members would consider that a sensible and fair way of proceeding.
  Mr. Soley: We had to drag the truth out of him but he has now conceded that where there is a surplus, it will be used to pay the housing benefit bill. That will mean that poor rentpayers who are just outside the housing benefit net, will end up paying the housing benefit of their neighbours. That is the truth, the Minister knows it, and in effect he has conceded that it is true.
  In his reply, the Minister referred again to rent collection. It was noticeable that he did not answer the question that I put to him in my opening speech about the report that the Audit Commission is about to produce, of
  926
  which he and his colleagues may be aware. The report states clearly that rent arrears are increasing in local authorities of all political complexions because of cuts in housing benefit. Yet he chose to start the hare that some people who could afford to do so are not paying their rent. Does he think that the Audit Commission report is wrong or right?
  Mr. Chope: I have not seen the report, so I cannot be expected to comment on it. The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue for the first time this evening. Under this Government, total payments of housing benefit have doubled. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is because the rents were increased."]
  Mr. Soley: This would be hilarious if it were not so tragic. Housing benefit has increased, despite cuts, because the Government have driven up housing costs and cut income support. As the previous Secretary of State conceded, expenditure on housing benefit has increased dramatically in some areas of the south where rents are high. An unemployed person living in a private-sector flat with a market rent of £70 a week—which is not unusual in London, certainly not in my constituency—has all his rent. paid through housing benefit. The system is daft. It does not even save public expenditure as the Government wish it to do. It has never helped people to pay their rent, as it should.
  The Minister also referred to the old canard of empty local authority flats. He has not heard about this matter before, so he had better remember it well. The average number of empty local authority properties is 2·5 per cent. of the housing stock. For housing associations it is 3·2 per cent.—slightly higher but both are good. For the private sector, it is 4·5 per cent. The worst offenders of all are the Government. Nearly 6 per cent. of their properties are empty. I do not refer only to Ministry of Defence properties. One in five Metropolitan police houses are empty.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) knows nothing about that. His own local authority has built a good housing development which he tried to prevent. That is why he walks by on the other side of the road when he sees the "homeless and hungry" signs. When he was a head teacher, I took my children away from his school because I did not want them to have his morality.
  The Minister forgets that 6 per cent. of Department of the Environment properties are empty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] Will the Minister take immediate steps to fill them? No, a year ago, his predecessor said that the Department would try to sell them. It is still trying to do so. The constituency of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has more empty Department of the Environment properties than any other. That is the sort of nonsense that the Government get into.
  Mr. Chope: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want his remarks to be taken out of context. Does he accept that the number of empty Department of the Environment properties is about 30?
  Mr. Soley: I am not interested in that. Someone with a small number of properties should be a good landlord. If a landlord has thousands of properties, I would expect difficulties. Someone with only a few hundred, a few dozen or tens of properties should be a good landlord. The Minister's Department is an incompetent landlord. The

  927
  properties have been empty for years. In my constituency, no fewer than 30 fiats and houses, 60 if we include under-occupied houses, have been empty for nine years. What will the Department of the Environment do with them? It will demolish four and five-bedroomed Victorian houses and flats. At the same time, the hon. Member for Ealing, North is walking by on the other side, away from the homeless and the hungry.
  My last point relates to the contraction of the private sector. A few hon. Members, including the Minister, said that the answer to the problems lay in expanding the private sector. Let us leave aside the issue of what happened some years ago and stick to what has been happening recently. We must remember that since 1980 the Government have been saying that they were abolishing the Rent Acts because it would be easier for private developers to let property. In fact, the private sector is continuing to decline. There are 500,000 fewer homes available for rent in the private sector than there were nine years ago. In London, where the Rent Acts have not really applied for several years, well over half the lets are outside the Rent Acts. As the Government make it easier to evict, the contraction of the private sector actually accelerates.
  The reason for that is not hard to find. We need only to go back to 1957, when the word "Rachmanism" was introduced into the English language. The strange fact is—it is one that the Minister does not understand—that Rachman was not a bad landlord; he was just a bad property developer. He did not want to be a landlord, any more than Hoogstraten wants to be one. They only want people in their properties for a very short time, and then want to sell, because buying and selling houses is more profitable than renting them. That will remain true even when the Minister achieves market rents, as he has now done, because of the subsidy system for the owner-occupied sector. That is why the private sector is declining. The big mistake that the Government have made is to axe the council house sector without providing an alternative.
  Our amendments are an attempt to redress the balance by allowing local authorities to build, repair and renovate. The Government are preventing them from doing that, and that is why we shall divide the House on amendment (b).
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 113 to 118 agreed to.

Clause 77
  CALCULATION OF HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT

    SUBSIDY
    Lords amendment: No. 119, in page 81, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 82 and insert—
    "(a) any amounts which fall to be or were credited or debited to the authority's Housing Revenue Account for that year or any previous year;
    (b) any amounts which, on such assumptions as the Secretary of State may determine (whether or not borne out or likely to be borne out by events), would fall to be or would have been so credited or debited; and
    (c) such other matters relating to the authority, or to (or to tenants of) houses and other property which are or have been within the account, as he thinks fit;
    and the Secretary of State may make any determination falling to be made for the purposes of a formula on the basis of information received by him on or before such date as he thinks fit.
    (4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above, a formula may require it to be assumed that the amount for any year of the rental income or housing expenditure of each authority (or each authority in England or in Wales) is to be determined—

    (a) by taking the amount which the Secretary of State considers (having regard, amongst other things, to past and expected movements in incomes, costs and prices) should be or should have been the aggregate amount for that year of the rental incomes or, as the case may be, the housing expenditure of all of the authorities (or all of the authorities in England or Wales) taken together; and

    (b) by apportioning that amount between them in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate (which may involve, if he thinks fit. inferring the aggregate values of the houses and other property within their respective Housing Revenue Accounts from the average values of any of the houses and other property which they have disposed of);

    and in this subsection "rental income" means income falling within item I of Part I of Schedule 4 to this Act and "housing expenditure" means expenditure falling within item 1 of Part II of that Schedule or falling to be debited to the authorities' Housing Repairs Accounts."
    Read a Second time.
    Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment (b), in line 13, leave out 'and' and insert
    'but, in determining any formula under this section for the year beginning 1st April 1990, the Secretary of State shall riot assume an increase in the average rent payable by tenants of a local housing authority which is greater than the highest local contribution differential for the purposes of section 425 of the Housing Act 1985 for that authority for any year after that ending 31st March 1986 and subject to this requirement'.
    Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 289.

    Division No. 370]

    [9.58 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Cartwright, John

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Allen, Graham

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Alton, David

    Clay, Bob

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Clelland, David

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Cohen, Harry

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Coleman, Donald

    Ashton, Joe

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Corbett, Robin

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Barron, Kevin

    Cousins, Jim

    Battle, John

    Cryer, Bob

    Beckett, Margaret

    Cummings, John

    Beith, A. J.

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Bell, Stuart

    Cunningham, Dr John

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

    Dalyell, Tam

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Darling, Alistair

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Boateng, Paul

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Boyes, Roland

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

    Bradley, Keith

    Dewar, Donald

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Dixon, Don

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Dobson, Frank

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Douglas, Dick

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Buckley, George J.

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Caborn, Richard

    Eadie, Alexander

    Callaghan, Jim

    Eastham, Ken

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Fatchett, Derek

    Canavan, Dennis

    Faulds, Andrew

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Fearn, Ronald

    929

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Fisher, Mark

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Flannery, Martin

    Morley, Elliot

    Flynn, Paul

    Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

    Foster, Derek

    Murphy, Paul

    Fraser, John

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Fyfe, Maria

    O'Brien, William

    Galloway, George

    O'Neill, Martin

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Patchett, Terry

    George, Bruce

    Pendry, Tom

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Pike, Peter L.

    Gordon, Mildred

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Gould, Bryan

    Prescott, John

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Radice, Giles

    Grocott, Bruce

    Randall, Stuart

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Redmond, Martin

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Reid, Dr John

    Henderson, Doug

    Richardson, Jo

    Hinchliffe, David

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Hogg, N.(C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Home Robertson, John

    Rowlands, Ted

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Howells, Geraint

    Salmond, Alex

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Hoyle, Doug

    Sheerman, Barry

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Illsley, Eric

    Short, Clare

    Ingram, Adam

    Sillars, Jim

    Janner, Greville

    Skinner, Dennis

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

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

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Smith, J. P.(Vale of Glam)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Snape, Peter

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Soley, Clive

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Spearing, Nigel

    Lambie, David

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Lamond, James

    Stott, Roger

    Leighton, Ron

    Strang, Gavin

    Lewis, Terry

    Straw, Jack

    Litherland, Robert

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    McAllion, John

    Turner, Dennis

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Vaz, Keith

    McCartney, Ian

    Wall, Pat

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Wallace, James

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    McKelvey, William

    Wareing, Robert N.

    McLeish, Henry

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    McWilliam, John

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Madden, Max

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Williams, Alan W.(Carm'then)

    Marek, Dr John

    Wilson, Brian

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Winnick, David

    Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Martlew, Eric

    Worthington, Tony

    Maxton, John

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Meacher, Michael

    Meale, Alan

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding.

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Atkins, Robert

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Alexander, Richard

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Amess, David

    Bellingham, Henry

    Amos, Alan

    Bendall, Vivian

    Arbuthnot, James

    Benyon, W.

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Ashby, David

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Body, Sir Richard

    930

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Ground, Patrick

    Boswell, Tim

    Grylls, Michael

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Hague, William

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Bowis, John

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Hannam, John

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

    Brazier, Julian

    Harris, David

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hayes, Jerry

    Burns, Simon

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Burt, Alistair

    Hayward, Robert

    Butler, Chris

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Butterfill, John

    Heddle, John

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Cash, William

    Hill, James

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Hind, Kenneth

    Chapman, Sydney

    Holt, Richard

    Chope, Christopher

    Howard, Michael

    Churchill, Mr

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

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

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Colvin, Michael

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Conway, Derek

    Hunter, Andrew

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Irvine, Michael

    Couchman, James

    Irving, Charles

    Cran, James

    Jack, Michael

    Critchley, Julian

    Janman, Tim

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Jessel, Toby

    Curry, David

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Day, Stephen

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Devlin, Tim

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Dicks, Terry

    Key, Robert

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Kilfedder, James

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Dover, Den

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Dunn, Bob

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Dykes, Hugh

    Knapman, Roger

    Eggar, Tim

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Evennett, David

    Knox, David

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Fallon, Michael

    Lang, Ian

    Favell, Tony

    Latham, Michael

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Forman, Nigel

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lightbown, David

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Lilley, Peter

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Franks, Cecil

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Freeman, Roger

    Lord, Michael

    French, Douglas

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Gale, Roger

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Gill, Christopher

    Maclean, David

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Malins, Humfrey

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Mans, Keith

    Gorst, John

    Maples, John

    Gow, Ian

    Marland, Paul

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Marlow, Tony

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gregory, Conal

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Grist, Ian

    Mellor, David

    931

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Speller, Tony

    Mills, Iain

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Squire, Robin

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Moate, Roger

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Steen, Anthony

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Stern, Michael

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Stevens, Lewis

    Moss, Malcolm

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Mudd, David

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Neale, Gerrard

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Nelson, Anthony

    Sumberg, David

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Summerson, Hugo

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Paice, James

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Patnick, Irvine

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Thorne, Neil

    Pawsey, James

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Thurnham, Peter

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Portillo, Michael

    Tracey, Richard

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Tredinnick, David

    Price, Sir David

    Trippier, David

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Trotter, Neville

    Renton, Tim

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Riddick, Graham

    Walden, George

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Waller, Gary

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Ward, John

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Rost, Peter

    Warren, Kenneth

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Watts, John

    Ryder, Richard

    Wheeler, John

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Whitney, Ray

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Wolfson, Mark

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Wood, Timothy

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Yeo, Tim

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Shersby, Michael

    Sims, Roger

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Alastair Goodlad.

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Question accordingly negatived.
    It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Lords amendments stood adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Local Government and Housing Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr.Nicholas Baker]
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 77.

    Divlsion No. 371]

    [10.13 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Atkins, Robert

    Alexander, Richard

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Amess, David

    Bellingham, Henry

    Amos, Alan

    Benyon, W.

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Ashby, David

    Body, Sir Richard

    932

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Boswell, Tim

    Hannam, John

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

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

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Harris, David

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Hayes, Jerry

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Brazier, Julian

    Hayward, Robert

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Heddle, John

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Burns, Simon

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Burt, Alistair

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Butler, Chris

    Hill, James

    Butterfill, John

    Hind, Kenneth

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Holt, Richard

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Howard, Michael

    Carrington, Matthew

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

    Carttiss, Michael

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Cash, William

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Chope, Christopher

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Churchill, Mr

    Hunter, Andrew

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

    Irvine, Michael

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Irving, Charles

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Jack, Michael

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Janman, Tim

    Colvin, Michael

    Jessel, Toby

    Conway, Derek

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Couchman, James

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Cran, James

    Key, Robert

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Kilfedder, James

    Curry, David

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Day, Stephen

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Devlin, Tim

    Knapman, Roger

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Dover, Den

    Knox, David

    Dunn, Bob

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Lang, Ian

    Evennett, David

    Latham, Michael

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Fallon, Michael

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Favell, Tony

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Lightbown, David

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Lilley, Peter

    Forman, Nigel

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lord, Michael

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Franks, Cecil

    Maclean, David

    Freeman, Roger

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    French, Douglas

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Gale, Roger

    Malins, Humfrey

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Mans, Keith

    Gill, Christopher

    Maples, John

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Marland, Paul

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Marlow, Tony

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gorst, John

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Gow, Ian

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Mellor, David

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Gregory, Conal

    Mills, Iain

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Grist, Ian

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Ground, Patrick

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Grylls, Michael

    Moate, Roger

    Hague, William

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    933

    Moss, Malcolm

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mudd, David

    Steen, Anthony

    Neale, Gerrard

    Stern, Michael

    Nelson, Anthony

    Stevens, Lewis

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Sumberg, David

    Paice, James

    Summerson, Hugo

    Patnick, Irvine

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Pawsey, James

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Portillo, Michael

    Thorne, Neil

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Price, Sir David

    Thurnham, Peter

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Renton, Tim

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Tracey, Richard

    Riddick, Graham

    Tredinnick, David

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Trippier, David

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Trotter, Neville

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Rost, Peter

    Walden, George

    Rowe, Andrew

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Ryder, Richard

    Waller, Gary

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Ward, John

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Warren, Kenneth

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Watts, John

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Wheeler, John

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Whitney, Ray

    Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Shersby, Michael

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Sims, Roger

    Wolfson, Mark

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Wood, Timothy

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Yeo, Tim

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Speller, Tony

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.

    Squire, Robin

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Fraser, John

    Allen, Graham

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Alton, David

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Beith, A. J.

    Grocott, Bruce

    Bradley, Keith

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Haynes, Frank

    Buckley, George J.

    Home Robertson, John

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Howells, Geraint

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Illsley, Eric

    Cartwright, John

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Clay, Bob

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Cohen, Harry

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    McAllion, John

    Cousins, Jim

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Cryer, Bob

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Cummings, John

    McWilliam, John

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Madden, Max

    Dalyell, Tam

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Marek, Dr John

    Fatchett, Derek

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Martlew, Eric

    Fearn, Ronald

    Maxton, John

    Flynn, Paul

    Meale, Alan

    934

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Wall, Pat

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Morley, Elliot

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Patchett, Terry

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Williams, Alan W.(Carm'then)

    Redmond, Martin

    Wilson, Brian

    Rowlands, Ted

    Winnick, David

    Salmond, Alex

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Skinner, Dennis

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce and Mr. James Wallace.

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Vaz, Keith

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any intimation from either the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State for Health about the state of the ambulance service in London? The Secretary of State claimed in the Chamber this afternoon that union members of the London ambulance service were refusing to provide a 999 service, a statement which has been emphatically denied. We now understand that some calls are being routed directly to ambulance stations because the police and the Ministry of Defence, which have been brought in to break the dispute, are unable to cope with the emergency calls. Clearly this is now a serious situation—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have had no such request.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order.
    Mrs. Mahon: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker. Tonight, on both the 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock news, the Secretary of State for Health said that a letter would be delivered to the ambulance negotiators in respect of the emergency services, which the—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mrs. Mahon rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is as may be, but it is not a matter of order for me.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: No; it is not a matter of order for me.
    Mr. Skinner: Well, on another point of order then, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced occupant of a chair, so let his point be in order because otherwise I shall deal with it in the way in which I am sure that he would.
    Mr. Skinner: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, quite a number of occasions during your tenure of office when there have been important developments—and bringing in the Army is an important development politically. In view of the reports on the 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock news, and since we had a statement earlier today on this in your presence, and because of the contradictory statements that are now flowing from both the Secretary of State for Health and the union negotiators, I should have thought

    935
    it a good idea for the Government to make a further statement to the House so that the matter can be cleared up and we can support the ambulance—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have been heard by those responsible on the Government Front Bench.
    Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Lords amendments again considered.
    Lords amendment No. 119 agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 120 to 128 and 318 to 327 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

  Clause 98

    GRANTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND REPAIRS
    Lords amendment: No. 135, in page 93, line 27, after "required" insert "(a)"
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following Lords amendments: Nos. 136 to 177, No. 178 and Government amendment (a) thereto, Nos. 179 to 215, No. 216 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, and Nos. 217 to 255.
    Mr. Howard: This group of amendments to part VIII falls conveniently into five broad headings, and I shall deal with each in turn. The largest group insert into this part of the Bill provisions to enable grant to be paid by local authorities towards the cost of repairs or improvements to the common parts of buildings and to houses in multiple occupation. These account for 62 of the amendments listed, of which 18 are substantive and the remainder minor or consequential. The main provisions for common parts grants are found in amendments Nos. 140, 151, 162, 186 and 197; and for houses in multiple occupation grant, these are amendments Nos. 142, 161, 201, 203 and 215.
    10.30 pm
    Three further amendments are proposed to clarify the operation of common parts grants. The first is a consequential amendment to clause 106, which provides for the test of resources to be applied in the case of a landlord's application for common parts grant. It inserts a new subsection which is the equivalent to that part of Lords amendment No. 185 which deals with HMO grants. It provides for the rental income of each dwelling in a building to be taken into account in the assessment of a landlord's income. Without this amendment there is doubt as to whether the aggregate rental income could be assessed.
    The second is a minor amendment to Lords amendment No. 216. It clarifies the persons from whom grant can be recovered in the event of the sale of a building in respect of which a landlord has received a common parts grant.
    The third is a consequential amendment to clause 117, which provides a similar clarification in respect of voluntary repayment of grant. It was always our intention to introduce these provisions, as was pointed out on Second Reading. The reason why it was not possible to bring them forward in time for consideration in this House at an earlier stage was simply one of drafting time. Both grant provisions were widely welcomed in another place.
    936
    The second group of amendments seeks to clarify our intentions as regards the working of the new grant system. I include within these the amendments—principally Nos. 144, 145 and 208—which enable the costs of fees and charges incurred by applicants in preparing their applications to be grant-aided. This is the case at present under the current grant system, but these amendments provide a specific power for the first time to avoid any doubt about the matter.
    I also include amendments Nos. 179 and 180 which make clear that in assessing the income of a landlord for grant purposes it will be possible to recognise explicitly the fact that not all landlords are able to let on an assured tenancy basis. This mans that an authority, in applying the test of resources to a landlord letting on a registered rent, will be required to take into account the reduced rental income that will be available to that landlord. It also means, of course, that the tenants of a landlord letting on such a basis stand to benefit from the larger grant that would be available in those circumstances.
    Amendments Nos. 181 to 185 also clarify the position as regards landlords who are charities. These have the effect of requiring local authorities to have regard to the income which might reasonably be available to such landlords from other sources, primarily resources which may specifically be earmarked for repairs and improvements within covenants.
    Amendments Nos. 163, 187 and 188 form a third convenient grouping which have the effect of requiring a local authority to approve an application made by a landlord where that landlord has been served a notice requiring certain repairs to be carried out; grant entitlement, of course, will be determined by the appropriate test of resources. These amendments very much preserve the status quo in that grants are mandatory under similar circumstances where a notice has been served under the current system.
    Amendments Nos. 191 to 195 have the effect of widening the range of purposes for which authorities are required to approve a disabled facilities grant. In particular, works for the purpose of providing a bedroom accessible to the disabled person, and of improving or providing the heating system, would be brought within the scope of the mandatory grant provisions. These amendments were welcomed by all sides in the other place.
    Mr. Paul Murphy: My hon. Friends and I will not oppose these amendments. Indeed, some of them are welcome, in particular those which provide grants for the provision of facilities such as heating systems for the disabled. We also welcome the way in which the new grant system will enable fees to be met partly by local government.
    But we cannot welcome the fact that the basic principles underlying the clauses to which those amendments refer have not been changed. In our view, improvement grants generally should have the aim of improving the housing stock. Grants of this kind should relate to property as well as to people. We believe that the Government aim to shift the balance from public grant aid to private finance, as they have done with the social fund and as they propose to do with student loans.
    Large parts of the United Kingdom, including Wales, will be seriously disadvantaged by the proposals to which minor amendments have been made because the Government did not change their mind while the Bill was

    937
    in the other place. Housing in Wales is older and in a worse condition than that elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Wales also has a higher percentage of elderly owner-occupiers and incomes are lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom. In Wales, 77 per cent. of owner-occupiers of unfit housing earn less than £9,000 compared with 62 per cent. in England and 75 per cent. of Welsh people live in poorly repaired housing compared with 45 per cent. in England.
    Obviously no one would suggest that the complicated grant system that has operated in the past should continue. Everyone welcomes the simplified system, but the proposals before us are unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. A number of local authorities and local authority associations have already informed the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office that the transitional arrangements from the old to the new system leave a great deal to be desired. There is a substantial backlog of grant applications. In Wales 40,000 applications are still outstanding, but they could be cleared with the capital expenditure of £200 million on a three-year programme. In Britain as a whole there are 300,000 outstanding applications.
    Despite the amendments we are considering, it is clear that the costs of the new system will be extremely high. The Institute of Housing reckons that costs will increase by 5 per cent. because of the new system and the unnecessary bureaucracy. The Association of District Councils reckons that 20 per cent. more staff will he needed to deal with improvement grants as a direct consequence of this part of the Bill. The association is right to ask for at least a 90 per cent grant towards those extra costs.
    It is also clear that the overall capital for improvement grants will be reduced as a result of cuts and the new capital control system. The Department of the Environment consultative paper, which is all we can go on at the moment, said that the Government contribution towards such grants is likely to be about 75 per cent. or even less. At the moment that contribution is between 75 and 100 per cent. All the local government associations have argued that that contribution should be 90 per cent. at least.
    The proposals do nothing to stamp out cowboy builders. Rents for private rented accommodation will also increase despite the welcome changes that the Minister has just announced. Unquestionably the biggest drawback is that the Government have not changed their mind on means-testing for eligibility for improvement grants. That testing is opposed by 19 organisations directly associated with housing. The Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Institute of Housing, the Chief Environmental Health Officers Association, the Building Employers Confederation and the National Home Improvement Council have told the Government that the new proposals to means-test eligibility for improvement grants will effectively mean that fewer people, especially those who are older, will take up improvement grants in those areas in desperate need of them. The Government should heed that advice as it reflects a wide spectrum of opinion.
    Under the present system, one in four applicants are eligible, but in future that will be reduced to one in nine. Only 35 per cent. will be eligible for grant under the new
    938
    system. A household with an average income that wants £4,000 worth of work undertaken will receive only £300 of improvement grant towards the cost of that work. Those earning more than £13,000 will not be eligible for anything.
    We are concerned that first-time buyers in particular will he badly hit in the sense that those likely to receive grant will not get mortgages and those who can get mortgages will not get grants. The unfit empty houses in the north of England, Wales and elsewhere, which are normally purchased by first-time buyers, will be seriously at risk.
    The means test will hit the Government's main supporters—elderly owner-occupiers. As the Association of Metropolitan Authorities stated, that group is increasing. They generally have neither the resources nor the interest in large-scale remedial work. The introduction of the means test will be a further disincentive to those people and will be a real deterrent. An old couple in their 60s or 70s will not want to be burdened by the complications of having to go through the new system. Even fewer older people will take up the grant. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be able to say in a year's time, no matter where they come from, that, as a result of these clauses, fewer old people will have taken up the improvement grants. That will be to the detriment of our housing stock.
    Household income should not be used as a means for determining the level of income for a property. A longer period should be used and mortgages should be taken into account when considering means testing. Despite the improvement which we welcome, the disabled will be hit. Means testing was always excluded from improvement grants for the disabled. We believe that a test of disability should govern eligibility. Savings of £20,000 and not £5,000 should he taken into account and those on the lowest incomes will not receive grant at all.
    The Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment have already shown through their surveys that the present system is hitting those who are to be targeted by the Government's present proposals. At the moment, the people in Wales, the north of England and elsewhere who are applying for improvement grants, those who need them most, are receiving them. That is shown in the Government's surveys.
    If means testing is to be introduced, why can there not be automatic grants for pensioners and those who claim benefit? We believe that the definition of earnings is too wide, the threshold level for 100 per cent. grant is too low, and the rate at which grant is reduced is too great.
    The local authority associations and those who know most intimately and deeply about the problems of housing improvement grants have put those points to the Government and the Government have turned their faces against virtually all of them. The Building Employers Confederation has said that the new scheme will do nothing to restore our older housing. There is no incentive for those on middle incomes to apply for grant.
    Despite the amendments which have been made, can the Minister give us examples of where grants have been badly targeted and are being badly targeted now? The Government must also explain the reasoning behind a major switch in policy in allocating grant. There is no question but that the new system will mean that fewer people will take up grant and that seems to be the opposite of what the Government intended. Also, our older housing

    939
    stock in areas where grants are most needed will deteriorate at a rate that is unacceptable to the community and, I would have thought, to the Government.
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful for the welcome given to the amendments by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). He reserved his criticisms for matters which are not in these amendments. They are matters which have been the subject of controversy in the Chamber and in another place on numerous other occasions.
    10.45 pm
    It was very touching to hear the hon. Gentleman express his concern that those on higher incomes who need repairs to their penthouses in Mayfair and Belgravia should be entitled to grant.
    Mr. Murphy: Would the Minister say that someone earning £13,100 a year was likely to have a penthouse in Mayfair?
    Mr. Howard: No; but the hon. Gentleman's root-and-branch opposition to taking resources into account, which lies at the heart of the Government's proposals, would have that effect, too.
    The worry expressed by the hon. Gentleman sat badly with his observations about the larger percentage of people on low incomes in Wales. If his figures were accurate, those people should welcome these proposals, because their whole point is to target the money that is available for home improvements on those who are least well off. That is the purpose behind the change in the system. I was also glad that the hon. Member for Torfaen recognised that the present system is extremely unsatisfactory.
    There is nothing between us on these amendments, and I commend them to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 136 to 177 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

  Clause 106

    LANDLORDS
    Lords amendment: No. 178, in page 98, line 39, at end insert
    "and

    (b) where an application for an HMO grant is accompanied by a certificate under section 102(7) above; and

    (c) where, by virtue of section 128 below, sections 101 and 102 above do not apply to an application for a grant; and

    (d) where an application for a grant is a landlord's common parts application"—[Mr. Howard.]

    LANDLORDS

      Condition requiring repayment of grant on certain disposals in case of landlord's common parts application
      "—(1) This section applies where a landlord's common parts application has been approved by a local housing authority.
      (2) It is a condition of the grant that where the applicant makes a relevant disposal (other than an exempt disposal) of the building within the initial period, he shall pay to the local housing authority on demand the amount of the grant.
      (3) A condition under subsection (2) above is a local land charge and shall, subject to subsection (5) and section 117 below, remain in force with respect to the building for a period of five years from the certified date.
      (4) So long as a condition under subsection (2) above remains in force with respect to a building it is binding on any person who is for the time being an owner of the building.
      (5) On satisfaction of the liability arising from a demand under this section, any condition under subsection (2) above shall cease to be in force with respect to the building in question.
      (6) The expressions "relevant disposal" and "exempt disposal" have the meanings assigned by section 116 below."—[Mr. Howard.]
      Read a Second time.
      Amendment made to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 12, leave out
      'an owner of the building'
      and insert
      'a successor in title to that interest in the building by virtue of which, under section 105(2)(b) above, the applicant made his application'.—[Mr. Howard.]
      Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Consequential amendment made to the Bill: (b), in page 107, line 37, at end insert—
      '( ) In the case of a grant condition imposed on a landlord's common parts application any reference in subsection (2) above to the owner of the building is a reference to the applicant or any such successor in title as is referred to in section (Condition requiring repayment of grant on certain disposals in case of landlord's common parts application) (4) above.'.—[Mr. Howard.]
      Lords amendments Nos. 217 to 255 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

    Clause 87

      CONDITIONS FOR DECLARATION OF RENEWAL AREA
      Lords amendment: No. 129, in page 87, line 14, at end insert "or".
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 130 to 134.
      Mr. Chope: These amendments are relatively minor. They are designed to amend definitions or to clarify the position of Crown properties and the powers of the Secretary of State in respect of the provisions in part VII.
      Read a Second time.
      Consequential amendment made to the Bill: (a), in page 99, line 8, at end insert—
      '( ) In a case where the application is a landlord's common parts application, each of the dwellings in the building concerned shall be taken into account under paragraph (b) or paragraph (bb) of subsection (2) above so as to determine an aggregate rent for the purposes of that subsection.'.—[Mr. Howard.]
      Lords amendments Nos. 179 to 215 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 216, to insert the following new clause.
      Amendment No. 131 requires a local authority, having declared a renewal area, to ensure the provision of a service of information and advice on repairs or improvements. It has always been our intention that this sort of service should be provided in a renewal area. This amendment puts that intention beyond doubt.
      Amendment No. 133 is also straightforward. It requires a local authority to keep the same sort of records as now when they receive a contribution from the Secretary of State towards expenditure incurred under this part of the Bill. This is a safeguard necessary for propriety and auditing purposes.
      Mr. William O'Brien: The Minister said that the amendments are minor, but they have major consequences for people living in substandard properties.
      In 1986 the English house condition survey was carried out, and it was published by the Government last November. It shows beyond any doubt that there has been virtually no improvement to hard core poor housing in the five years since the previous survey.
      The survey shows that 543,000 dwellings lack basic amenities, that 1,053,000 are unfit, and that 1,113,000 are in serious disrepair. It is also important to reveal that the report contains a new class of dwellings—those in poor condition. They are defined as dwellings lacking one or more basic amenities, all unfit dwellings, and those needing urgent repair to the external fabric where the cost is estimated at £1,000 or more. Altogether, 2·8 million dwellings were in poor condition and of those 2·4 million were in poor repair. Those outlines are published in the condition of housing in England section of the report.
      The survey shows that 463,000 dwellings, which is 2·5 per cent. of the stock, lack basic amenities. One third of those were vacant at the time of the survey and 42 per cent. were in the private rented sector and in very poor

      943
      condition. That shows what the future holds if the Government persist in passing properties from the public to the private rented sector. It appears that the Government are set on a course of putting more properties from the public sector into the private sector, even though the report shows that the private sector does nothing to enhance the condition of properties.
      We have been told about empty properties and fingers were pointed at those owned by councils. The report reveals beyond any doubt that the largest number of unoccupied dwellings at the time of the survey belonged to the private rented sector. The Government should take note of that. It is unfair to criticise local authorities because the report reveals that only 11 per cent. of local authority houses were in poor condition. It is totally unfair to criticise local authorities when the private sector is the culprit responsible for keeping empty and unfit dwellings.
      Mr. Allen McKay: Does my hon. Friend agree that because of recent Government actions local authorities are finding it difficult to give grants to people who need them and that slum clearance programmes are being held back? Those two matters are building up problems for the next 20 or 30 years.
      Mr. O'Brien: My colleague has touched on a point that I want to make about the resources that are necessary if houses in a poor or sub-standard condition are to be brought back into service. He is right to say that, because of the reduction in HIP allocation, houses are falling into disrepair. Basic amenities cannot be provided by the local authorities or by grants to the private sector and owner-occupiers because of the cuts in grants.
      The report says that the proportion of housing in poor condition was higher in the north-west, the west midlands, Yorkshire, Humberside and the south-west than in any of the regions.
      Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is dealing with what the Minister described as only minor amendments, but which my hon. Friend is showing are a factor in the housing crisis. The assembly of all these Cabinet Ministers and more junior Ministers on the Front Bench tells me that, now they have found the Leader of the House and dragged him in here, they are going to stop the business short. I know that my hon. Friend has some valuable points to make, so I give him the nod and the wink that he should make them in the next few minutes, because the debate will be stopped.
      Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend's experience is showing. The array of Ministers on the Front Bench makes it obvious that my hon. Friend has made a good point. We shall see whether his tip is correct.
      The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Where is the array of talent on the Opposition Front Benches?
      Mr. O'Brien: They have gone for some refreshment, because we are going to stay here for quite a long while, if it is all right with the Leader of the House.
      No one can deny the urgent need for significant increases in the level of public and private investment in the nation's housing stock. The Government's proposals in the Bill do little to encourage, and more to restrict, investment. The Association of District Councils, which is not a Labour-controlled body, published a report on
      944
      30 October which deals with the properties referred to in this part of the Bill. The title of the report is "A Time to Take Stock." It says that one in seven houses in England and Wales are in need of repair, and the bill for those repairs has rocketed to its current estimate of £36 billion. The ADC urges the Government to help to meet the bill by making more public money available to repair both private and council homes. Tory councillors are urging the Government to make money available so that houses can be repaired to a satisfactory condition, so that they can be occupied, which would help to reduce the waiting lists, and meet the needs of the homeless.
      Two councillors who are members of the ADC, Lady Elizabeth Anson, and the chairman of the housing committee, Graham Facks-Martin, both appealed to the Government to make resources available because of the drastic shortage of money to improve properties. Page 17 of the report refers to a survey that finds that poor housing is occupied overwhelmingly by people on low incomes who are unable to contribute to the improvement of their properties.
      11 pm
      Poor stock condition is often regarded as primarily an urban problem, but the report says that, while there is a. problem in urban areas, 22 per cent. of housing in rural areas is in poor condition whereas 14 per cent. of urban housing is in poor condition. Conservative Members should consider the report carefully as there is a need for more resources to improve dwellings, more so in rural than in urban areas.
      The relationship between poor repair, unfitness and lack of basic amenities in rural and urban housing is only partly explained by a higher proportion of older properties being in rural areas. Almost 40 per cent. of the rural stock was built before 1919, compared with 25 per cent. of urban stock, but some 41 per cent. of pre-1919 dwellings in rural areas are in very poor condition, compared with 33 per cent. in urban areas.
      In rural areas, 48 per cent. of dwellings in the private rented sector are in poor condition, compared with 40 per cent. in urban areas. That can be explained by the higher incidence of private renting in rural areas such as East Anglia and the south-west. These statistics speak volumes about the public sector's ability to provide the right facilities in rural and urban areas.
      The report says that the worst area is the north-west and that the second worst is Yorkshire and Humberside—the area that I and some of my hon. Friends represent. We have made numerous requests of the Government for additional resources to be made available to local authorities to allow repairs to be made in the private and the public sector. The issues raised by these amendments may be minor to the Minister, but they are major to people in the north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside.
      The survey shows that, without additional resources with which to make improvements, the condition of properties, whether owner-occupied or rented in the private sector or the public sector, will deteriorate. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip are here, as it is most important that we have this matter on notice. Their political colleagues in the ADC are saying that, without additional resources, the condition of properties throughout the country will get worse. I hope that they will note this serious issue.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the debate be now adjourned.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
      Mr. Bob Cryer: This is a debatable motion and we should not let it pass as if it were merely a matter of procedure. I suspect that the Government have in mind a change in the business, and that they intend tomorrow to announce guillotine motions on the Local Government and Housing Bill and the Employment Bill. The Opposition are willing to continue debating the Bill. It is 11.5 pm, but that fact should not curtail the debate. There should be strong opposition to the notion that the Government can trample on the rights of Parliament by introducing a guillotine motion on the Employment Bill when the Lords amendments to it have not yet been discussed in this place. Even if the debate on that Bill went all through tomorrow night, that would not justify a guillotine motion.
      I suggest that the Government are moving progress on the Local Government and Housing Bill so that they can introduce a guillotine motion on the Employment Bill. It is most unreasonable of them to move progress at this stage and to use their seedy majority to impose two guillotine motions upon the House. That is why the Leader of the House is in his place. Apparently the Government have been scouring the House looking for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. They were intent on getting him into the Chamber with a business statement. Even worse, he might repeat the trick of moving that the House should make progress and linking a business statement with that motion, which would prevent us from questioning the business statement. That manoeuvre broke a convention of the House.
      The Government are using their majority to introduce a guillotine motion on the consideration of a Bill when the Lords amendments to it have not yet been debated in this place, and using their power to deny the Opposition the right to question their business statement. I hope that the fact that a junior junior Whip has had the effrontery to move progress is a sign that the Leader of the House intends to make a proper business statement that we can question.
      Mr. Skinner: The Government's action is even worse than my hon. Friend suggests because for the past 80-odd hours a group of young men and women organised by Shelter have been taking part in a vigil in Abingdon gardens opposite Downing street, protesting against the housing shortage caused primarily by the Government's policies over the past 10 years and against the cardboard society that the Government have created. The Government will move their guillotine motion tomorrow at about the same time as these young people complete the 100 hours of their vigil. That will be the duration of the vigil, and that will be the Government's response to the young men and women who are trying to draw attention to the plight of the homeless. The Government do not care about the homeless. They now intend to introduce a guillotine motion to stop the debate—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman sought to catch my eye, I would call him to make a speech. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has the floor.
      Mr. Skinner: One of the reasons why some of us are reluctant—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows well that an intervention is a pertinent comment or a question. If he seeks to catch my eye, I shall be pleased to call him. At the moment, I have called the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
      Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have said that if an hon. Member catches your eye, you will call him. I have to tell you that the chance of anyone being called is fairly remote. Not too many minutes ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) was making his speech, but in the middle of it he was stopped by the Government Whip. It is all right for you to say that we will be called, but there is not much chance of that. This is gagging and censorship.
      Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) makes an important point. This is a deliberate attempt at gagging and censorship. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) was making an excellent speech about the standards of housing, but the Minister will not have the opportunity to reply. My hon. Friend made wide-ranging comments about the low quality of housing in many urban areas—cities such as Bradford, where there is need for a great investment in the housing stock.
      The Secretary of State visited Bradford and spoke to the Tory group's annual meeting. He tries to put on a cloak of greenery, but I must tell him that the Tory council in Bradford is attempting to push back and destroy the green belt. I hope that he will use his powers to stop the council because already there is not enough green land in Bradford. It will be a test both for the right hon. Gentleman and his pretensions and for the Tory council and its pretensions.
      I shall now return to the motion. I will not be distracted by the right hon. Gentleman and his pretensions of being concerned about the environment. We know that it is not true. The aim of the motion is to prevent the House debating an important Bill. There are many hours ahead of us, and many of us are well practised and well versed in raising issues throughout the night and into the early hours of the morning. There is no reason why we should not spend another five, six, seven or eight hours debating the Bill, without even intruding on the Government's business for tomorrow.
      I could have understood the Government putting forward a motion of this kind at 7 am, when there had been many hours of debate, but that is not what they are doing. This is a deliberate attempt to block debate. Their followers are disgruntled and the Government do not like it when the Opposition have the opportunity to take the initiative. They are using their majority to trample on the Opposition and to take away our right to debate this important and basic piece of legislation. The fact that the majority of Conservative Members have rushed here to vote for the Government shows how little they care about the provision of housing.
      Mr. Battle: Perhaps Conservative Members are here under duress. I have sat through the whole of the debate and not one of them has spoken, other than a Minister. They are not interested in the Bill, but they are being forced reluctantly to support it.
      Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has a point. The Minister complained that half a dozen Opposition Members had spoken, but that no Conservative Member had done so. The Opposition are concerned about the issues. We have made a number of interventions and comments because we represent the areas of deprivation, not the lush green stockbroker belt and the City spivs so amply represented on the Tory Benches. They do not care about the issues. They do not care about giving the Opposition an opportunity to put forward their points of view. That is why some of us bitterly resent this way of curtailing debate and of preventing the Opposition from properly airing their views.
      There has been no attempt to extend the debate. I will not use the word filibuster because filibusters never take place in the House of Commons. There is no question but that every speech made here tonight has been to the point and, in many cases, an expression of heartfelt concern about the deteriorating provision of housing under the Tories. The Government cannot claim that the debate has been extended.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Ray Powell: I listened to my hon. Friend only a week ago speaking on the same issue of cutting time on major debates on major Bills. The Government cut the time available for debate on the Children Bill and left us with only three hours to debate 441 Government amendments which were crucial to the Bill. On one in particular, concerning the emotive issue of grandparents' rights, it was essential for us to have more time for debate.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's great concern on that issue, but it is not relevant to the motion.
      Mr. Cryer: You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker. But the Government's motion has precedents which have resulted in the curtailment of debate on, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the Children Bill and the Companies Bill.
      The Government have overloaded Parliament with a huge amount of legislation. The Water Bill, which is being advertised in some tasteless, expensive and generally objectionable advertisements, was a huge volume of legislation. The Electricity Bill has landed in a morass because the electricity industry is so difficult to privatise because of its nature and complexity and the way in which the expensive Magnox reactors have had to be excluded. As a result of overloading Parliament and the Standing Committees, the Government are now in deep trouble. The only way in which they can meet their date for the Queen's Speech is by introducing guillotine motions.
      If the Government behaved sensibly, obeyed democratic principles and gave the Opposition the right to put forward constructive amendments they would have to postpone the Queen's Speech. In some instances the Opposition reject a Bill outright, but we try, in a constructive and positive way, to improve legislation, and that is what we have done with the Local Government and Housing Bill. It is difficult because it is such a nasty piece of legislation in general. We can only put forward amendments which attempt to relieve the oppression inherent in the principles behind the Bill. We have tried to do that, but the Government are sweeping all that to one side on the basis that if the Queen's Speech does not take
      948
      place on the day that has been announced, they will be announcing to the world that they are in a mess. I understand that the Queen has a visit abroad, so any delay would be inconvenient
      Mr. Skinner: It is worse than that. Parliament is due to be televised, so they would have to run some old films.
      Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a relevant point.
      An announcement would have to be made to the public at large that the Government were in a mess, and that is the truth of the matter—they are in a mess because they have overloaded the House with business. If questioned, some of the House's administrators will readily admit that the Government are now introducing so many huge chunks of primary legislation, that legislation is so complex and the House is given so little time to shape it adequately that they are depending increasingly on delegated powers. That is a very bad principle.
      Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend talks of the complexity of legislation. He should remind the House that, as a result of the Government's failure to understand the Children Bill, the Companies Bill or this Bill, they have been lumbered with several hundred amendments on each—many more than is normal practice.
      My hon. Friend has said that the Government intend to move a timetable motion tomorrow, coupling this Bill with the Employment Bill, which has not been debated since we returned to deal with the overspill of legislation after the summer recess. I wonder whether that breaks with convention, and whether it is a matter for Mr. Speaker to investigate.
      Mr. Cryer: I mentioned that at the outset. I consider it a matter of grave concern that the Government intend to link the two Bills. That is why the Leader of the House is present—he will have to make a business statement. This is probably unprecedented, and is linked to the motion, which has been moved to allow such a statement.
      Mr. Soley: As I pointed out the other day in a point of order, 606 amendments do not merely constitute a record. for the past 50 or 100 years but probably constitute an all-time record in the history of the House. More importantly, as a result, we have been trying to deal with a Committee stage on the Floor of the House without the normal safeguards. As I pointed out yesterday, if it had been taken on the Floor in the normal way there would have been a vote, and a procedure to follow.
      Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There were more than 400 amendments to the Children Bill, which was a consensus measure. It could be argued—and the Government did argue—that that was because of their response to changes made in Committee, but a considerable proportion of the amendments were due to Government decisions to make changes.
      More than 1,000 amendments were tabled to the Companies Bill—an extraordinary number. In a point of order yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) pointed out that that made things extremely difficult for the Opposition, who are assisted by a very limited number of people compared with the army of civil servants on whom the Government can call. Not only do the Opposition have to deal with amendments at very short notice—I understand that the

      949
      amendments were not available until Monday this week—but we have to look through all of them and marshal our arguments with very limited assistance. The Opposition had to deal with 2,000 amendments on those three Bills, all of which have been subject to the guillotine. The Government are using the House as a rubber stamp. The guillotine leads to the forcing through of amendments without examination by the House.
      Mr. Skinner: I should like to put the head of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) under that guillotine.
      Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
      By forcing through without examination such a large number of amendments the Government are saying something else—that the definition of legislation is not to be left to the House. There is merit in examining a Bill in detail. There is merit in a Standing Committee examining a Bill clause by clause. Since then, however, the Government have tabled a flood of new amendments—with the result, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith said, that the Committee stage was wasted.
      The unfortunate truth is that the Bill will have to be defined when it leaves this place. It is sloppy in a number of areas. Government drafting is frequently sloppy. There will be no scrutiny here because of the guillotine which will result from the business statement. Where will decisions be made? They will be made in the courts. Whenever there is ambiguity, shoddiness or sloppiness in the legislation and a dispute arises, inevitably it will have to be settled in the courts.
      The business statement will lead to examination of the Bill being curtailed. Individuals will be unable to afford to go to court if there is a dispute. It will be too expensive for them. Only the local authorities will be able to do that. No wonder the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), is smiling. He is a lawyer. He is smiling with the sort of contemplative preen that comes to lawyers when they know that legislation is defective and they can see all those refreshers looming up and cash tills registering as a result of the pages of controversial amendments that the Government have tabled. No hon. Member can examine them because they are all subject to the guillotine. There are days and days of sunny pastures ahead in the courts—and all the other days when the lawyers will be counting up the fees that they will get out of local authorities, which almost certainly will have to go to court to obtain definitions of the guillotined amendments.
      The House should try to ensure to the best of its ability that the legislation is well defined. Sometimes we fail, but we are not even being given the opportunity to try. The purpose of the guillotine is deliberately to ensure that the House cannot scrutinise the Bill.
      The Opposition's political function is to make clear to the public the defective nature of much of the legislation—for example, the water privatisation legislation, which is another huge chunk of legislation that has got the Government into such a mess. The crooked nature of selling off assets which belong to the people is shown by the Government's spurious argument that people will have a choice if they buy shares in the water industry. That is an example of legislation which is causing an enormous mess.
      950
      We oppose that on political grounds, but because of the complexity of the legislation, the Opposition have a duty to make legislation as clear as possible, so that the citizenry are not oppressed by legislation which has to be clarified in the courts, often with Tory judges and Tory lawyers lining their pockets as fast as they can.
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Battle: Perhaps it is a salutary reminder that the last time we considered a housing Bill with a large number of amendments it was guillotined so we were not able to point out the impact of the great heralded proposal for housing action trusts, which were going to be the saviours of areas that needed housing investment, at the expense of local authorities. As a result, local authorities and tenants have been put to a great deal of trouble for nearly two years while they were warmed up to the proposals, which the Government will not carry out because they realised the folly of the proposals in the Bill that was rushed through the House.
      Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for an excellent and pointed illustration of the difficulties that rushing legislation through causes to ordinary citizens. We legislate not for ourselves but for people at large.
      Tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton raised some useful points about the standard of housing. He pointed out that, among other areas, the lowest standards of housing are in Yorkshire and Humberside, the area that he and I represent. I did not speak in the debate, because I was hoping that the Minister would reply at some length. My attitude was conditioned by the fact that the Minister was very upset when six or seven Labour Members raised points about earlier sections of the Bill. The Minister did not once give way, because he said that he had many points to answer. I thought that I would give the Minister the opportunity of holding forth with only our Front Bench spokesman outlining the position extremely competently and in detail, but as soon as the Minister got up the Government moved progress.
      I can understand that, given the Minister's speech. He got himself into a mess. He did not take interventions because clearly he did not know the policy he was pursuing. It may well be that the Leader of the House came in and said, "Christ, it's Chope," or words to that effect, and told the Whip, "Get that motion for progress moved as fast as you can." So he strode towards the Dispatch Box and the Whip leapt in and stopped another calamity. That would explain it.
      However, we are entitled to make a judgment. If the Under-Secretary of State, or whatever he is now—I am never quite sure about the moves that take place in Tory circles these days—was about to make a speech, we were entitled to make a judgment on it, and the Whips should not interfere. After all, the Minister might have read out the defensive briefing that the civil servants had prepared for him. We should be entitled to hear that. It is quite wrong for the Government Whip to stop the House hearing what the Minister has to say, because it is put on record. We often use the information in Hansard to clarify the position. Yet the House is denied that by the Whips' interference.
      A number of important points have been made tonight, and I know that a number of my hon. Friends are very keen to speak on this matter, because they feel as aggrieved as I do at the piratical nature of the Government. Many of

      951
      us have criticisms of this place and recognise that there could be improvement. None the less, in general elections, about 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. of people on the electoral register turn out and vote because they believe that this place represents some sort of democratic endeavour. The Government Whip moved the motion because the Government are running out of patience with democracy—not that they had much—and they are prepared to trample on it.
      Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. One of his jobs is to clear up the mess after the Lord Mayor's parade. The result of guillotined legislation is that the orders that come before the House must be dealt with by my hon. Friend later on in Committee. Can he envisage the extent to which the legislation of this week, last week, and probably next week will be guillotined and will cause difficulties for the Joint Statutory Instruments Committee?
      Mr. Cryer: I would like to spend a moment or two speculating on that point. Now that my hon. Friend reminds me, I raised this very point when the Government Whip moved the closure during my speech on the Children Bill. I received several understanding and sympathetic comments. Many hon. Members were interested in the points I was about to make. Inevitably, if this motion is passed, and if, as one supposes, the Leader of the House is to move a change of business—that is presumably why he is still hanging round—two Bills will be guillotined. Hon. Members have plenty of time in which to debate this issue. This debate is open-ended, so hon. Members can continue to speak for some time, unless the perfidious Tory Whips move another motion.
      The difficulty is that the legislation will not be properly examined, and therefore problems will arise. I mentioned earlier that one of the sad reflections on the Government's legislative programme is that they are handing over too much power to Ministers. They are seeking to fill the gaps by handing delegated powers to Ministers so that they can produce a great number of statutory instruments. Because I was interested in this subject as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, I looked at the figures relating to the production of statutory instruments. After a hesitant start in 1979, the number has increased virtually every year. This Government were to take legislation off the backs of the people, but they are producing more ministerial orders than the 1974–79 Labour Government about whom they bitterly complain. If that is a consequence of the motion, the facilities for dealing with delegated legislation on the scale that has arisen in the Government's legislative programme are totally inadequate.
      On one day before the last recess, there were 15 statutory instruments, three of which were reported to the House by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, because they were in varying degrees ultra vires, badly drafted or ambiguous, or because the Minister made an unusual use of power. There was no time for a proper debate, because so many statutory instruments were involved.
      That is an illustration of the way in which time is soaked up by Ministers using their powers in primary legislation. They do not give the House adequate time in the first instance, so that the House can deal with
      952
      legislation instead of saying, "Here are some powers. The Minister can virtually produce whatever statutory instruments he wants." Before such a principle is adopted on any wider bases, the House must consider the procedure for the scrutiny and examination of statutory instruments. That is not involved in the business motion, and is therefore one reason why I oppose it.
      Suppose the Whips had said, "We should finish the debate on the Bill, but we will come back to the House with a whole programme for changing the nature of legislation in this House. We're not going to have detailed debate and discussion; we're going to have regular guillotines. We're fed up with dealing with amendments and with staying here after tea-time. We want to get home, get to the City or go to see our stockbrokers for advice, because if we don't, we get into difficulties—and at the same time, because we're going to extend delegated powers, we'll have a whole new look at the scrutiny." If they had said that, we could have formed a different judgment; we would have had to have an entirely different scale of values. But they did not say that, so I feel that I must oppose the motion—
      Mr. Skinner: The first point that I want to make quickly is that Ministers do not see stockbrokers very often. That is a principle. Stockbrokers can just get rid of about £50,000 and not tell anybody about it until about 12 months later. I know that it sounds strange, but apparently that is the rule.
      On the question of changing the system, is my hon. Friend putting forward the view—I should like to hear his views on this because people change their minds about legislation—that it would be better to guillotine Bills before they start on this merry road—or what?
      Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. What he said about stockbrokers worries me a little, because it suggests that the lack of communication between Ministers and stockbrokers is spreading to Parliament. What they want to do is to—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman a lot of rope this evening. I hope that he will not hang himself.
      Mr. Cryer: I am certainly not going down that road, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was simply saying that cutting the debate and moving this business motion prevents a proper exchange of views—and that seems to be present elsewhere—between Ministers and stockbrokers. But I will not repeat that view any more, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I can see that it would not be a fruitful course of action.
      Mr. Skinner: Why not guillotine stockbrokers?
      Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover asked about delegated legislation and about whether a Bill should be guillotined from the beginning. He suggested that the business motion might be linked to that sort of idea. We cannot change the rules in mid-stream. It would be exceedingly wrong, and a major and radical change for Parliament to undertake. We cannot do that at this stage, which is why, since we have an existing system of dealing with Bills—on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report, on Third Reading, in the Lords and during our consideration of Lords amendments—we must maintain that system, but for it to work we must give legislation

      953
      adequate time on the Floor of the House. That is why it is an outrage for the Government to try to curtail matters in this way.
      Mr. Tony BanksMy hon. Friend and I have complained in the House about the manner in which the Bill is moving towards the statute book. Is my hon. Friend aware that we have had a Committee stage on Report, with large numbers of Government amendments, and then a further Committee stage during our consideration of Lords amendments? It is a crazy way to put legislation together. It is clear that Ministers do not know what they wanted to try to achieve, the Bill was so badly drafted.
      As a consequence of this inefficient manner of dealing with legislation, there will be all sorts of problems in the future for local government. Therefore, we must insist that the Government carry on debating the Bill tonight, because we need to ensure as best we possibly can that what goes on to the statute book is at least explicable to those who will have to try to implement it in local government.
      Mr. CryerI spoke earlier about the effect of shoddy legislation and measures passed in haste. Although we have spent many hours debating the Bill, it is now largely a different measure from that which we originally discussed. After all, 600 amendments tabled at this stage must result in ambiguities and difficulties.
      Mr. Keith Vaz: Six hundred and fifty.
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Cryer: The number is increasing all the time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith said at the outset this afternoon, the complexities of the Bill are such that we need more, not less, time to debate it. I fear that, because the Government are not making concessions and because the debate is being restricted, certain provisions in the measure will end up being tested in the courts. Consider the Private Eye libel case, in which the costs have been over £300,000—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that does not apply to the motion that is before the House.
      Mr. Cryer: The fact that the debate is being curtailed will mean that the law will not be drafted as well as it might have been.
      Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is making important points and we are listening to him with interest. Shall we be able to continue the debate once he resumes his seat? I fear that at that stage the Leader of the House will move the closure. Are we to he restricted even from debating the motion?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Cryer.
      Mr. Cryer: Curtailing the debate will lead to confused legislation, and that will be bad legislation. I was giving an idea of the scale of costs that might be incurred in clarifying the Bill in court, and I mentioned by way of example the fact that in the Private Eye case the costs had amounted to nearly £350,000. Imagine how many houses a local authority could build for that money, or perhaps
      954
      £500,000 if the issue were taken to the House of Lords on appeal. On the other hand, one wonders how the lawyers have the nerve to ask for such huge sums.
      When one hears some of the lawyers in this place, one wonders who on earth would pay them, at any price, for some of the comments that they make.
      Mr. Skinner: A theory advanced by a few people is that, rather than have legislation go through in its normal slap-happy way and rather than finish up with lawyers making vast sums in court, there should be in an ideal situation a revising committee in the House. That committee would be made up of lawyers, and they would tidy up the legislation while working as Members of Parliament. They would be unable to work in the courts or make any money from the Yorkshire Ripper case or the Private Eye case. They would be slogging away in the House. They could start at 10 am, although if the House started earlier we could get them started at 8 am. That committee could deal with all the complicated legislation and possible Government amendments while we dealt with Question Time in front of the cameras.
      Mr. Cryer: I must warn my hon. Friend that when he murmured about the abolition of fees and lawyers doing work without any remuneration, the Leader of the House woke up. Obviously that suggestion came as a great shock to him. We should proceed carefully on this matter.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was right to mention the courts, as the cost of going to court is not inconsiderable. As the Bill concerns local government and housing, it is clear that such costs will fall largely on local authorities. Those authorities are already badly strapped for cash. It is unfair that, as a result of the business motion, the potential implication is that local authorities will be forced to find large sums of money to finance actions to gain clarity on the Bill.
      There is a great deal of argument over the proposed salary increase for hon. Members to be effective from January.
      Mr. Skinner: No increase for ambulance crews.
      Mr. Cryer: Indeed. Hon. Members are not badly paid; most of them get more than most of their constituents. If hon. Members are willing to stay here to examine legislation to try to make it clear and free from the festering examination of lawyers, we should stay here to do just that—that is what we are paid to do. The Government are denying us that opportunity by moving the closure.
      Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend is right to say that we should give these important matters detailed examination. I hope that he appreciates that we are talking about 152 pages of amendments. Some people outside might think that we are talking about the odd word or so and minor matters, but some of the amendments are several pages long. We need considerable time to discuss those matters in detail.
      Mr. Tony Banks rose—
      Mr. Cryer: I shall deal first with the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) before I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for the Back Benches.
      My hon. Friend for Burnley is right. No doubt the Government would argue outside that they moved the motion to curtail the debate because the amendments, although in their hundreds, were technical and minor.

      955
      Perhaps an amendment deletes "may" and inserts "shall", but such a change would represent a major change of policy father than a minor amendment. That argument would not wash with hon. Members.
      My hon. Friend is also right to argue that some of those amendments do not simply delete one word and insert another, but are several pages long. The Government have put down a sufficient number of amendments to constitute a book full of amendments. Those amendments constitute a greater amount of wordage than in many Bills. The Government are denying us the right to discuss amendments in detail, but those amendments constitute more words than we see in many of the Bills put before us.
      I cannot imagine a better illustration of the way in which the Government are trampling on the democratic rights of this House. They are trying to oppress us by denying us the opportunity to speak out. If the Government Chief Whip wants to intervene and tell us that the Government want to withdraw the business motion, I will be happy to give way. However, the Government are more intent on curtailing democratic rights than on entering into any spirit of understanding with a constructive Opposition.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: My hon. Friend referred to the Government trampling on the democratic rights of Parliament. Does he believe that we could learn from what has happened in East Germany today, where I understand that the Cabinet has resigned and—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interesting though that may he, it does not relate to this business motion.
      Mr. Home Robertson: With respect, Madam Deputy Speaker—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I found it very interesting, but he must relate his intervention to the motion before the House. If he can do that, I will hear him.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are dealing with the procedure before the House and the power of Parliament to control the actions of the Government. My interesting point is that in East Germany, apparently, the Parliament is to have an opportunity to elect the Cabinet. Would that not be useful in this country?
      Mr. Cryer: That is a very interesting point. One of the reasons for Parliament is to give us an opportunity to control and scrutinise the Executive. When that opportunity is denied through the use of business motions of this kind, when the Opposition is run roughshod over because the Government have a majority of 100 or so, the message goes out to the people on the street that our democracy is crumbling. We have seen what can happen in those circumstances in other countries.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Is my hon. Friend aware that we should have reached Lords amendment No. 266 and amendments (a) to (d) to that amendment tonight? That amendment deals with emergency planning, particularly in London. I was hoping to move some of those amendments, because we have no civil emergency planning in London. Surely that should concern this House from a personal as well as from a local, strategic point of view. Something disastrous might happen to the House of
      956
      Commons tonight, but there is no co-ordinated emergency planning in London. Is my hon. Friend aware that London is the only capital city in Europe that does not have a co-ordinated—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a very convoluted intervention. The hon. Gentleman is a very skilled parliamentarian and I have no doubt that he can relate what he has to say to the motion before the House. Have another try—Mr. Tony Banks.
      Mr. Banks: I have not had such a nice thing said about me since 1983. Madam Deputy Speaker. I love you dearly for what you have just said. I will treasure it in my heart for ever.
      I was trying to explain that this motion will curtail a reasonable debate on a subject that is of prime importance to the capital city and therefore of some passing significance to the House. I want my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to take that into account as he opposes this motion.
      Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is particularly distressing that the Government should try to curtail debate on such an important issue. As I have an interest in a London constituency and am concerned about it, I would have urged the Government to accept the amendment, because one of the great cities in western. Europe—indeed the greatest city—has no emergency planning—
      Mr. Banks: In peacetime.
      Mr. Cryer: Yes, the greatest city has no emergency planning in peacetime.
      Mr. Winnick: It is appropriate that my hon. Friend should speak of the restrictions on parliamentary debate when it seems that the Leader of the House is going to restrict it even further by denying us the chance to debate this motion.
      Does my hon. Friend consider it odd that the Prime Minister goes around boasting about the need for democracy and lecturing other countries on the subject while here at home there is no democracy in the Cabinet and there are severe restrictions on democracy in this place? When my hon. Friend sits down, the Leader of the House will try to stop us debating.
      12 midnight
      Mr. Cryer: That is a good point. I understand that the Government are going to try to move the closure.
      Mr. Skinner: It is going to be a Cinderella job.
      Mr. Cryer: I have heard that it will be done at 12—
      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is to be the pumpkin.
      Mr. Cryer: I hope that any attempt at a closure will be rejected. Many of my hon. Friends are anxious to join the debate.
      Before my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made his interesting point, I was talking about emergency planning in peacetime, which is the sort of matter that Parliament should discuss. I have already said that the Opposition have been prepared to put forward constructive and helpful amendments, but I have not yet touched on policy. My hon. Friend the Member for

      957
      Newham, North-West could not have brought this important subject to the attention of the House in any other way. If I had not questioned this routine motion to adjourn further consideration, my hon. Friend would not have had the chance to point out that the Government are trying to deny us the right to debate emergency planning in the greatest city in the United Kingdom—a city of 14 million people.
      I dare say there are more efficient and effective measures in Bradford than those available to the citizens of London. It is outrageous that this opportunity to discuss emergency planning in peacetime is being curtailed. It is interesting that, on the very day when, on one of his rare trips to the House, the Secretary of State for Transport spoke about a major railway disaster, this issue should have come up. Labour Members representing London boroughs would have dealt with the matter, but the chance to do so has been denied them—
      Mr. Allen McKay: It was strange that the motion to adjourn consideration was moved when we were talking about aspects of rural areas. Coincidentally, the next group of amendments affect us all—they deal with the sale of old people's flats and bungalows without the possibility of their replacement—and that is serious.
      Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend raises two important matters. There is a notion that the Labour party does not take a deep interest in rural areas, but this set of events gives the lie to that. The Government intervened to stop discussion of certain aspects of rural housing. We shall certainly get votes—
      Mr. David Hunt: We are debating the motion that the debate be adjourned and I have not heard any arguments from the hon. Gentleman about why that motion should not be carried. There are 606 amendments before the House but 90 per cent. of them are technical and consequential. The amendments are in 22 groups of which we have managed to complete only two. It is clear that we have not made the progress that we had reasonably expected, and I strongly urge the hon. Gentleman to accept the motion and let us adjourn.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Tim Renton)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question put, That the Question be now put:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Winnick: I spy strangers.
      Mr. Tony Banks(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the second time on a point of order that I have found myself caught short when you have decided to take an interrupted motion. Do you not have any discretion at all in relation to an interrupted motion? My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was making a number of valid points in which the whole House was interested. Every hon. Member was listening with great attention. I would have thought that discretion could have been exercised. I know that you do not need to explain, and I
      958
      am not asking you to explain, but could you tell me for the sake of the future whether you can exercise such discretion?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the entire House that the Chair certainly has discretion in these matters.
      Mr. Winnick(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I moved that I spy strangers. Were you not willing to accept that motion?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: The Question had been put first. I must be honest with the hon. Gentleman: although he has a very good voice and I often hear him, on this occasion his voice was drowned by the voices of Conservative Members.
      Mr. Pike(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask whether you have been given any indication by the Government that they intend to make a business statement following the Division? Alternatively, have they said when they intend to bring the business that we have been debating back to the Floor of the House?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair has not been told the Government's intentions in those matters.
      The House having divided: Ayes 165, Noes 46.

      Division No. 372]

      [12.05 pm

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Favell, Tony

      Amess, David

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Amos, Alan

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Arbuthnot, James

      Forman, Nigel

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Ashby, David

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Franks, Cecil

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Freeman, Roger

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      French, Douglas

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Boswell, Tim

      Gill, Christopher

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Brazier, Julian

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Gorst, John

      Burns, Simon

      Gow, Ian

      Burt, Alistair

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Butcher, John

      Gregory, Conal

      Butler, Chris

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Butterfill, John

      Grist, Ian

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hague, William

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Carttiss, Michael

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

      Cash, William

      Harris, David

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hayward, Robert

      Chope, Christopher

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Churchill, Mr

      Hill, James

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Conway, Derek

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Howard, Michael

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

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

      Cran, James

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Day, Stephen

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Hunter, Andrew

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Irvine, Michael

      Dover, Den

      Jack, Michael

      Dunn, Bob

      Janman, Tim

      Dykes, Hugh

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      959

      Key, Robert

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Knapman, Roger

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Speller, Tony

      Latham, Michael

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Squire, Robin

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Stern, Michael

      Lightbown, David

      Stevens, Lewis

      Lilley, Peter

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Maclean, David

      Summerson, Hugo

      Mans, Keith

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Thorne, Neil

      Mills, Iain

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tracey, Richard

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Trippier, David

      Neale, Gerrard

      Trotter, Neville

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Walden, George

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Waller, Gary

      Paice, James

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Watts, John

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Wheeler, John

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wilkinson, John

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Portillo, Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Renton, Tim

      Wood, Timothy

      Riddick, Graham

      Rowe, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ryder, Richard

      Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      NOES

      Alton, David

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Lewis, Terry

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Beith, A. J.

      McWilliam, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Bradley, Keith

      Meale, Alan

      Buckley, George J.

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Murphy, Paul

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      O'Brien, William

      Clay, Bob

      Patchett, Terry

      Cryer, Bob

      Pike, Peter L.

      Cummings, John

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Redmond, Martin

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Salmond, Alex

      Dixon, Don

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Soley, Clive

      Fearn, Ronald

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Flynn, Paul

      Wallace, James

      Foster, Derek

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Winnick, David

      Haynes, Frank

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Home Robertson, John

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Howells, Geraint

      Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Illsley, Eric

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Question put accordingly:—
      The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 47.

      Division No. 373]

      [12.16 am

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Arbuthnot, James

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Amess, David

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Amos, Alan

      Ashby, David

      960

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Knapman, Roger

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Boswell, Tim

      Latham, Michael

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Brazier, Julian

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Burns, Simon

      Lilley, Peter

      Burt, Alistair

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Butler, Chris

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Butterfill, John

      Maclean, David

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Mans, Keith

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Carttiss, Michael

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Cash, William

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Mills, Iain

      Chapman, Sydney

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Chope, Christopher

      Moss, Malcolm

      Churchill, Mr

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Conway, Derek

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Cran, James

      Paice, James

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Patnick, Irvine

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Day, Stephen

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Dover, Den

      Portillo, Michael

      Dunn, Bob

      Renton, Tim

      Durant, Tony

      Riddick, Graham

      Dykes, Hugh

      Rowe, Andrew

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Ryder, Richard

      Favell, Tony

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Forman, Nigel

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Franks, Cecil

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Freeman, Roger

      Speller, Tony

      French, Douglas

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Squire, Robin

      Gill, Christopher

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Stern, Michael

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Stevens, Lewis

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Gorst, John

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Gregory, Conal

      Summerson, Hugo

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Grist, Ian

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Hague, William

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Thorne, Neil

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

      Thurnham, Peter

      Harris, David

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Tracey, Richard

      Hayward, Robert

      Trippier, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Trotter, Neville

      Hill, James

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Hind, Kenneth

      Walden, George

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Waller, Gary

      Howard, Michael

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

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

      Watts, John

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Wheeler, John

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Wilkinson, John

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Hunter, Andrew

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Irvine, Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Jack, Michael

      Janman, Tim

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Michael Fallon.

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Key, Robert

      961

      NOES

      Alton, David

      Lewis, Terry

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      McWilliam, John

      Beith, A. J.

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Meale, Alan

      Bradley, Keith

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Buckley, George J.

      Murphy, Paul

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      O'Brien, William

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Patchett, Terry

      Clay, Bob

      Pike, Peter L.

      Cryer, Bob

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Cummings, John

      Redmond, Martin

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Salmond, Alex

      Dixon, Don

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Soley, Clive

      Fearn, Ronald

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Flynn, Paul

      Stott, Roger

      Foster, Derek

      Wallace, James

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Haynes, Frank

      Winnick, David

      Home Robertson, John

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Howells, Geraint

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

      Illsley, Eric

      Kennedy, Charles

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Debate to be resumed this day.
      Notice being taken that Strangers were present, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order NO. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—
      The House divided: Ayes 0, Noes 151.

      Division No. 374]

      [12.27 am

      AYES

      Nil

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. David Winnick.

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Alton, David

      Butterfill, John

      Amess, David

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Ashby, David

      Cash, William

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Chope, Christopher

      Beith, A. J.

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clay, Bob

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Boswell, Tim

      Cryer, Bob

      962

      Cummings, John

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Maclean, David

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Mans, Keith

      Day, Stephen

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Meale, Alan

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Durant, Tony

      Mills, Iain

      Favell, Tony

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Moss, Malcolm

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Flynn, Paul

      Neale, Gerrard

      Forman, Nigel

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Franks, Cecil

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Freeman, Roger

      Paice, James

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Patchett, Terry

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Patnick, Irvine

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Pike, Peter L.

      Gorst, John

      Portillo, Michael

      Gregory, Conal

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Grist, Ian

      Renton, Tim

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Ryder, Richard

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Harris, David

      Salmond, Alex

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Haynes, Frank

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hayward, Robert

      Skinner, Dennis

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Stern, Michael

      Home Robertson, John

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Howard, Michael

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

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

      Summerson, Hugo

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Thorne, Neil

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Illsley, Eric

      Tredinnick, David

      Jack, Michael

      Trippier, David

      Janman, Tim

      Trotter, Neville

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Wallace, James

      Kennedy, Charles

      Waller, Gary

      Key, Robert

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Wheeler, John

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Latham, Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Wood, Timothy

      Lewis, Terry

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Lilley, Peter

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Mr. Michael Fallon and Mr. David Lightbown.

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Question accordingly negatived.

      Business of the House
      12.38 am
      The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement about the rearranged business for tomorrow. It will be as follows:
      WEDNESDAY 8 NOVEMBER—Timetable motion on the Local Government and Housing Bill and the Employment Bill, followed by completion of consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government and Housing Bill and consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Bill.
      The rest of the week's business will be as already announced.
      Dr. John Cunningham: Is the Leader of the House aware that his statement is totally unacceptable to the Opposition? I do not believe that the Leader of the House, who left his previous high office in a shambles after the Government reorganisation—[interruption] I do not mean that the right hon. and learned Gentleman left the Foreign Office in a shambles. I mean that the reorganisation of the Government was a shambles and that his removal from his previous office was a shambles, not his conduct of foreign affairs. Could he, however, have envisaged the business shambles for which he was about to become responsible?
      The Bill has been before the House for 10 months—since February of this year. We are still considering it because the Government have tabled more than 600 amendments at this late stage in the proceedings. There has been no Opposition filibuster—neither in Committee nor in another place, where Opposition amendments were accepted by the Government. This state of affairs exists solely because Ministers have tabled more than 600 amendments and in effect are trying to enact a replay of the Committee stage on the Floor of the House.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman has already created a record during his short tenure of office as Leader of the House. In a few short weeks he has already had to move four guillotine motions. It is an unenviable record for him to have to defend. Not only is the Prime Minister's conduct of government demeaning government in Britain, but the conduct of the Government's business in this House is demeaning the reputation of Parliament.
      Sir Geoffrey Howe: Seldom can anyone have heard a more war-weary and less convincing presentation of a case than the one that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has just given. The Bill has been considered for a total of 210 hours. The amendments that were under consideration both yesterday and today were, as to 90 per cent. or more of them, technical and capable of very expeditious consideration. The crucial point is that yesterday 317 amendments were disposed of entirely as foreseen through the usual channels, whereas today, for some unexplained and unacceptable reason, there has been no comparable progress. In the face of that, it was absolutely right that the Government should take this step.
      Mr. James Wallace: I thank the Leader of the House for giving notice that he proposed to make a business statement. As a distinguished lawyer, I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman must have
      964
      considerable reservations about the fact that many of the amendments were introduced at a very late stage in the other place and were not sufficiently scrutinised through lack of time. They are now being scrutinised here without adequate time for debate. Does not the Leader of the House hanker after the days when the Conservative party believed in lightening the legislative load?
      Sir Geoffrey Howe: The central point is that well over 300 amendments were dealt with yesterday in perfectly good order. Had there been comparable progress today, there would have been no problem; but there has not been comparable progress today.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: Has the Leader of the House considered the implications of his business statement on the discussion of Scottish business? There are important amendments to the Bill that affect Scotland and will receive inadequate consideration because of the guillotine motion. A further guillotine motion is poised over the Scottish education legislation next Monday. We are entitled to ask whether the Government are prepared to allow any discussion of Scottish business in this Chamber.
      Has not the Leader of the House something of a brass neck to come to the House and announce the curtailment of the discussion of Scottish business when there is not one Scottish Conservative Member in the Chamber to hear him—[interruption]—with the sole exception of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)—and occasionally we are not quite sure whether he is with us?
      Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has some difficulty in espying my hon. Friend at this time of night, but he is here, alert and watchful as ever. The Government will ensure that the interests of Scotland arc well and effectively looked after.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: Instead of introducing the guillotine motion tomorrow, would it not be a better idea for the Leader of the House to call upon the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement about the ambulance crews and the introduction of the Army—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I do not see how this relates to the statement by the Leader of the House.
      Mr. Skinner: Whenever a business statement is made, it is right and proper for hon. Members on either side to call for other statements instead of the statement that he has made. That is the practice in the House.
      The Leader of the House should call upon the Secretary of State for Health to make a further statement about the ambulance crews and the Army being brought in, in view of the continuing controversy. It has now been revealed that the negotiations on the trade union side—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These matters do not arise out of the statement.
      Mr. Skinner rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Cryer.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Leader of the House accept that since he has been Leader of the House he has made more business statements after

      965
      midnight than before midnight? Does he further accept that we condemn such trampling on parliamentary rights? Will he ensure that tomorrow the Secretary of State for Education and Science makes a statement to the House on capital expenditure on schools which is—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman just heard me say that questions must be related to the statement and not to other matters.
      Mr. Cryer: It is related. Before this change of business is implemented tomorrow, I want a statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Children in my constituency of Bradford, South are being sent home because of the lousy Tory council in Bradford not spending enough money on schools. The children in my constituency deserve better than that from this rotten Government.
      Sir Geoffrey Howe: Even the hon. Gentleman is surely subject to the rule of courtesy that I want does not get.
      Mr. David Winnick: Is the Leader of the House aware that if there are to be restrictions on debate when there is no question of filibustering—[Interruption.] The Conservative Members who are shouting were not present during the debate. Is the Leader of the House aware that if such restriction of parliamentary rights and privileges continues Back Benchers will fight it with every conceivable parliamentary device to ensure that our voices are heard? After the Leader of the House announced the procedural motion tonight was one illustration of that.
      Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the hon. Gentleman reflects upon the swift progress that was made yesterday and the non-progress that was made tonight, he will see that there is no foundation for his threat.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Before I ask a question of the Leader of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you say whether Conservative Members' claim that there has been a filibuster—if that is their accusation—is a criticism of whoever was in the Chair at the time?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair will judge whether any speeches or statements in the House are in or out of order.
      Mr. Banks: I remind the Leader of the House that, when I congratulated him on becoming Leader of the House, I said that in his new position he would find life far more convivial than he did when travelling around the world with the Prime Minister, being feted and drinking gin and tonics. He sees exactly how interesting the times in which he lives are when he proposes guillotine motions.
      I advise the Leader of the House that 650 amendments are far too many for hon. Members seriously to consider in the constricted timespan that he is now to give us. Why could not hon. Members be allowed to continue discussing the amendments in a measured way through the night and into the next day? We are quite prepared to do so. What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman afraid of? Can he not muster his troops to put forward a reasonable argument on the Government's amendments?
      Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman knows that our troops are mustered and ready to uphold the Government in all these matters. There is no realistic prospect of measured consideration of the kind that the hon. Gentleman talks about. There was measured, sensible consideration on the previous day. There has not been any this evening.
      Mr. Frank Haynes: Is the Leader of the House aware that I have now completely lost faith in him? Last Thursday, I suggested that he should watch the Government Chief Whip. He has now joined in the right hon. Gentleman's activities. Is it any wonder that the opinion polls are in our favour? People can see the mess that the Government are in. I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should go to No. 10 tomorrow and resign.
      Sir Geoffrey Howe: The whole House will want to reflect upon the hon. Gentleman's gentle ruminations, but the Government will continue to prevail upon the support of the people of this country.
      Mr. Bob Clay: Will the Leader of the House explain how on earth the House will be able to give adequate attention to Lords amendment No. 277 to the Local Government and Housing Bill, which deals with housing action trusts?
      The Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), went to Sunderland on Monday to discuss housing action trusts, and then issued a press release which appears to claim that he has caved in to a Labour council on that matter. Other local authorities threatened with housing action trusts will want to know what the amendment is about, what its implications are for them, and exactly what deal the Minister has struck with my local authority. How are hon. Members to debate that matter in the pathetic amount of time that the Government have allocated, if that amendment is ever reached?
      Sir Geoffrey Howe: A great deal of time could have been devoted to it tonight had there not been so much time spent on dilatory matters. As it is, we shall have to see how much time is available tomorrow.
      Mr. Peter L. Pike: As the Leader of the House is not prepared to go along with any other suggestions, and as he referred more than once to Monday's proceedings, saying that he was happy with the progress that was made, will he guarantee that he will provide similar time tomorrow as was available on Monday so that all the issues may be debated?
      Sir Geoffrey Howe: The House will have to recognise that it is a question to which a large amount of time has been devoted today, including the extended discussions that we are having at this late hour. One must take full account of that.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: Why is the Employment Bill being caught up in this procedural mess? It is a hideous Bill, but in terms of procedure, it went readily through Committee, readily through the Lords and readily through the rest of its proceedings in this House. There have been no previous problems with it, but it is now being curtailed because of the procedures affecting other measures. We are not being given a proper chance to look at the Lords amendments to the Employment Bill.
      Sir Geoffrey Howe: It has not been caught up in any kind of procedural mess whatsoever. It is important—and recognised by hon. Members of all parties to be important—that we should try to preserve the rest of this week's business, including the debate fixed for Thursday on parliamentary pensions. I am anxious to achieve that, as well as this.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: The Leader of the House has started 8 November with an unscheduled statement to the House. He has announced that the House is to have a substantial additional workload during the coming day, or tomorrow, or whatever it is. Does he anticipate that either he or any other Minister will want to make any other statements on any other difficulties that the Government may stumble into during the next 12 hours or so in tomorrow's business, or today's business, or whatever it is?
      Sir Geoffrey Howe: Let us see how we get on with tomorrow's business when it comes.
      Mr. Allen McKay: The Leader of the House has made several suggestions about a filibuster tonight and has referred to yesterday's business and to today's business. I suggest two things. First, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not looked at what yesterday's business was and why it went through. The contentious items were, in fact, on today's business. Secondly, I refer to the fact that yesterday, through the usual channels, the voting pattern was decided, yet there have not been any consultations through the usual channels today on that. If there had been, we could have told the Leader of the House when we would vote.
      Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman should know that there has been consultation through the usual channels and that the original layout of business in the two days provided was in accordance with matters discussed through the usual channels, and it is that which has not been fulfilled.

    PETITION

      TUITION FEES AND LOANS
      12.57 am
      Mr. David Alton: I beg to ask leave to present a petition on behalf of Mr. Robert Bertram, the president of the University of Liverpool Guild of Undergraduates, other officers of the union and 1,562 petitioners who are students in Liverpool.
      I share the concern and determined opposition of my constituents to the introduction of the student loan system. The petitioners believe that such a system would deter many young people from seeking higher education and believe that loans would be a millstone round their necks. They further believe that it would be a regressive measure, and educationally and socially damaging.
      The petition
      sheweth that any proposals to introduce the payment by students of tuition fees and student loans, whether partially or fully, will further limit access to higher education.
      Wherefor your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do reject any proposals to introduce the payment by students of tuition fees or student loans.
      To lie upon the Table.

      Beef
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
      11.58 am
      Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House at this hour to help me, I hope, with a vexed problem that has been giving me great cause for concern since I established the nature of the practice some time ago.
      I refer to the question of the pre-slaughter tenderising of beef. My hon. Friend will be aware of the process, involving the use of chemically modified papains for the pre-slaughter tenderising of beef. He will also be aware of the decision by his predecessor in office not to accept the recommendation of the Farm Animal Welfare Council that the practice should be banned on ethical and welfare grounds. He may also be aware of the defence of that decision by his fellow Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), in the BBC's "The Food Programme" recently.
      In a letter to me, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon referred to research carried out in the light of a Farm Animal Welfare Council report designed to find out whether animals suffered pain after injection, especially if there was to be a delay before stunning and slaughter. I presume that he was referring to a paper published in Meat Science in 1987 entitled "Clinical biochemistry and pathology of mature beef cattle following ante-mortem intravenous administration of a commercial papain preparation." Since neither I nor the House of Commons Library could find any other work that has been done, I presume that that was the work to which reference was made.
      For a number of reasons, I am far from happy with that paper. One of the authors who participated in the work was an employee of the firm promoting the practice involved, so he would have a distinct interest in the result. The maximum duration of observation—it related to just one beast out of the 10 involved—was 315 seconds between the administration of the papain and the time of slaughter, when the manufacturer's recommendation is for slaughter to take place at between two and 20 minutes. What then, I thought, of the period of between five and 20 minutes, or even longer? In the discussion section of that paper, the observation was made:
      "However, for this study we are unable to predict the outcome if a period longer than 315 seconds elapsed between treatment and slaughter."
      The fact that that aspect has not been addressed is a travesty in the light of the Farm Animal Welfare Council's statement:
      "We were also told that if, for any reason, a treated animal could not be put through the slaughter line, it would be placed back in the lairage under observation and slaughtered the following day without being reinjected."
      Lines break down, and slaughter in six minutes cannot be guaranteed even in the best run establishments.
      My next objection is that the work on rats and sheep to which reference was made in the paper is surely relevant in the light of the potential delay problem to which I have referred. It is clear that there is an effect on the metabolism of animals, even though the enzyme may be rapidly excreted through the kidneys. I am advised by Professor Webster of the animal husbandry unit at Bristol that the effect on the liver would be akin to having a bad hangover
      970
      and would leave any animal, as it does a human being, feeling very depressed. It seems that the beef animal that has been injected and is feeling thoroughly depressed is shoved out into the lairage with a heavy hangover, only to be knocked off the next day. I cannot see any humanitarian or welfare considerations in that. In fact, it could be positively cruel.
      The handling of the animals prior to injection is given only peremptory attention in the paper to which I have referred. My veterinary friends tell me that one of the big pluses to flow from the EEC licensing of abattoirs is that the vets are able to exercise supervision over the welfare interests of the animals. They point out that knuckles must be rapped from time to time and that slaughtermen must be brought up short and told the errors of their ways if they get sloppy or take short cuts with procedure. In such an exercise, with a formal demonstration, as we had when the Farm Animal Welfare Council witnessed the procedure in this case, the demonstration of the techniques involved would be carefully managed. I imagine that great care would be taken to ensure that everything was right. After all, the promoters had a lot at stake.
      The paper talks about "a well organised abattoir," but I have not been able to find any reference to any criterion in the use of papains which says that it must be done in a well organised abattoir. When the pressure is on for throughput, will the animals be so carefully handled? I have strong reservations, especially in the light of the observations of those vets who have had to witness that process. They are of one mind—they do not like what they have to witness.
      The size of the sample was also extremely small. A mere 10 beef animals with nine as controls is not a firm foundation for the conclusions drawn from that particular research, or alleged research, paper. Given that it represents the only research around, it may comprise the best scientific advice, but I was frankly surprised to find such a superficial paper being taken so seriously against the advice of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which stated clearly that the practice should be banned on ethical and welfare grounds.
      A constituent farmer arrived at a slaughterhouse to find that the gates which were normally open were locked. Shortly after his arrival he described how he heard the dreadful sounds of cattle "screaming". It was the abnormal noise of acute pain. While he was listening to that, another visitor to the abattoir—also a farmer—appeared from within the complex. My constituent asked what on earth was going on and the other farmer told him that the cattle were being injected with a tenderising substance, adding that he had been told to keep quiet or the slaughter men would not accept his stock. I find that particularly bothering. What kind of practice is this which leads to furtiveness, operations behind closed doors and blackmail? It cannot be healthy.
      On "The Food Programme" my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary compared the experience of the cattle to that of humans giving blood at a donor session. From time to time I have given blood and I must confess that I do not find it a particularly comfortable experience. However, I am not in an unknown and hostile environment, nor am I physically restrained in a crush. My head is not yanked to one side to expose my jugular for the best part of a pint of fluid to be pumped in. Above all I know what is happening. The poor beast in the abattoir does not know what is happening. In welfare terms the

      971
      slaughter process, to have any dignity, must be quiet, orderly and stress free. I cannot see how those requirements can be complied with under the present practice. I cannot see how the welfare of the animal is enhanced in any way as the whole process is palpably not to its benefit. There is nothing therapeutic about it—the practice is purely for the benefit of the trade.
      I hope that my hon. Friend will carefully review the welfare aspect of this unnatural practice and that he will take wider advice. I am sure that that action would lead to his wishing to withdraw Ministry approval. When my hon. Friend reconsiders the matter he should also take into account the future dimension—the single European market. We are approaching 1992 and from what I have been able to find out it is clear that, for a variety of reasons, other member states are not all of an easy mind about the practice. By 1992 commonality must exist in the meat trade if there is to be free trade in carcase meat. It would be most helpful to know the Government's thinking in that respect.
      In the meantime, what should we do? I believe that consumers show a considerable interest in the food processes involved in the provision of staples and I consider beef to be a staple. The consumer should be able to make an informed choice. In his capacity as Minister responsible for food, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would go along with that.
      The 1980 food labelling regulations call for such meat to be labelled as tenderised, but that description does not differentiate between post-mortem tenderising such as pounding, partial chopping or electrical techniques and ante-mortem tenderising such as the method of which I am complaining. As fas as the consumer is concerned, cooking times and storage techniques are different. Get those wrong and the meat might disintegrate in cooking, and if the meat is not stored properly there may be problems with food poisoning. It is essential that the product be properly identified at all times.
      Such meat should be described for trading purposes as
      "Pre-slaughter enzymic treatment tenderised meat."
      I know that that is a mouthful, but it must be clear that the treatment is pre-slaughter and involves a chemical. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will give an undertaking tonight to amend the food regulations accordingly. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give strong advice to trading standards officers so that traders offering the product for sale over the counter in the high streets know what it is all about. When I asked someone what the expression "tenderised meat" meant, I was told, "Oh yes, sir, it is more natural like—been kept in the open and fed lots of barley." What greater travesty of the truth could there be?
      The claim is that the proportion of joints that can be grilled or roasted increases from 35 per cent. in an untreated carcase to 75 per cent. after treatment. The economic advantage moves to the meat trade as the market demand is for the hind-quarter cuts. The logic of the argument is that fewer beef animals would be required for the prime beef market if the practice became more widespread. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that my part of the world rears darned fine beef. A practice might grow up of trying to upgrade cow beef and passing it off as prime beef. At the time when the beef industry—both the suckler cow herds and dairy herds—is under pressure,
      972
      it seems crazy to espouse a practice which is highly dubious in welfare terms and has no economic benefits for primary producers.
      I hope that I have said enough for my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider the Government's position, to commission more searching research from independent sources and to amend the food labelling regulations and give that vital advice to trading standards officers to make certain that proper standards are maintained in this respect. I am revolted by what is happening in the trade now, and I believe that I am not alone in my revulsion.
      1.12 am
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on securing the debate and on choosing this subject. I know of my hon. Friend's long attachment to animal welfare. I believe that he is still an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association. That is a great honour and privilege which I was able to share for a short while.
      Like my hon. Friend, the Government attach great importance to securing the proper welfare of animals at slaughter and at all other stages of their lives. If we are to have meat to eat, animals must be slaughtered, and in large numbers, but we are determined to ensure that that is performed as humanely as possible. There is already extensive legislation governing the welfare of animals at slaughter. This provides substantial safeguards. Nevertheless, procedures and techniques have changed since detailed rules were introduced in the 1950s, and we propose shortly to introduce new regulations on the welfare of animals at slaughter which, in giving effect to recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, will strengthen and improve the protection now afforded by the law.
      I understand why anyone who has the welfare of animals at heart should view with concern a process for administering before slaughter an enzyme solution to tenderise the meat from the animal. Indeed, the Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended that such treatments before slaughter should be banned. The Government do not reject lightly any recommendation by the council, which they appointed as an independent body to advise them on matters relating to the welfare of farm animals. The decision to do so in this case was not an easy one, but those who wish to use this process have a right to expect that it should not be condemned on suspicion alone but that it should be evaluated objectively and scientifically. That is what the Government have done, and very carefully. I therefore welcome this opportunity to explain to the House and to my hon. Friend the detailed consideration which the Government have given to this process. In doing so, I hope to reassure the House that some of the concerns which have been expressed about it by my hon. Friend are unnecessary and also, perhaps, to clear up some of the misconceptions which are held about the treatment.
      The foremost consideration for the Government when considering any process or treatment relating to the food we eat must be the safety of the consumer. That is paramount. The enzyme administered to the animals is papain, a natural vegetable enzyme derived from the paw paw fruit, which is commonly consumed by humans. It has

      973
      a long history of medicinal use for the treatment of chronic dyspepsia and gastritis among other things, and it is used in the production of beer. It has been carefully evaluated for safety in use by the Department of Health's committee on toxicity, as well as by international scientific bodies, which have approved it for use in food. When used as in the tenderising treatment, papain is present in the meat before it is cooked at a level of less than five parts per million. Cooking first activates the enzyme so that it tenderises the meat and, as the temperature rises, it then largely destroys the enzyme. I can assure the House that its use in this process for tenderising meat presents no risk whatever to public health.
      Before I deal with the welfare concerns surrounding this treatment, it may be helpful if I explain the process. It involves the intravenous administration of a solution containing oxidised papain into prime beef animals immediately before stunning and slaughter. The amount administered is generally about 250 to 300 ml, but this is varied according to the size and weight of the animal. The solution is introduced into the vascular system in accordance with accepted veterinary practice and it is circulated throughout the animal's body by the blood stream. The solution remains inactive and has no effect upon the live animal. It remains in the meat until it is cooked, when it is activated by the heat and acts to accelerate the breakdown of the protein molecules in the meat, making it tender.
      The process was developed in the United States and has been used in this country since the early 1960s. The company holding the patent rights to the process in the United Kingdom uses it in its own plants and also licenses other operators. Unlike in the United States, however, use of the process in this country is not widespread and I understand that only about 2 per cent. of the total number of cattle slaughtered each year are thus treated.
      One common misunderstanding is the belief that the treatment is used to improve what would otherwise be tough or poor quality meat. That is not so. In fact, its application is confined to prime young animals—to steers less than three years old and heifers up to two years old. The treatment is said to increase the recovery of meat which can be grilled or roasted from 35 per cent. in an untreated carcase to 75 per cent. in a treated one. Although other methods of tenderising meat are available, this process is particularly effective and achieves a uniform distribution throughout the meat of a relatively small quantity of the enzyme.
      I shall now turn to the welfare aspects which were the main concern of my hon. Friend. I understand well the concerns that the process raises. The Farm Animal Welfare Council and other welfare interests expressed concern that the enzyme might begin to operate on the tissues of the animal while it is still alive. The council was concerned that there was a real risk that this might cause suffering, especially if slaughter is delayed for any reason. In practice, the time between administration and slaughter is generally no more than about five minutes. Nevertheless, the concern that the animal's tissues and organs might be affected by the enzyme is easy to understand. In order to test this, the Ministry carried out research which established that there is no evidence that deterioration of
      974
      tissue occurs during the few minutes before animals are usually slaughtered. If slaughter should be delayed for any reason the fluid is excreted.
      Officers of the state veterinary service who participated in the study concluded—and I accept their evidence and judgment—that there was no evidence that animals suffer any pain as a result of the presence of the enzyme in their bodies, and that if the recommended procedures are followed no welfare problems should arise. The results were published in Meat Science in 1987 and, as my hon. Friend said, a copy has been placed in the Library in case any hon. Member should wish to examine it as closely as my hon. Friend has done.
      My hon. Friend spoke about some of the bad practice that he has encountered or has evidence of in abattoirs. I am aware that there have been a number of reports and articles in the press criticising welfare standards in slaughterhouses. Obviously, the treatment of an animal is open to abuse at any stage of its life. As I have already explained, there is extensive legislation designed to safeguard the welfare of farm animals at slaughter. That gives local authorities responsible for enforcing the legislation sufficient powers to ensure that standards are maintained and enables them to take any action if they consider that an animal has been mistreated.
      The press articles made various claims about poor welfare which we took very seriously. However, in spite of extensive inquiries none of the claims has been substantiated. Perhaps I could assure the House that it is the view of my veterinary advisers who visit slaughterhouses that conditions are generally satisfactory and they do not witness the conditions that I have seen described rather vividly in press articles.
      Another welfare concern has been that some animals suffer adverse reactions to the enzyme. I am aware, for example, of reports, about this, such as one in the Veterinary Record of 5 January 1985. Although we know that such reactions have occurred, confirmed cases are known to be extremely rare. The risk has now been reduced virtually to zero by refinements to the process. The company holding the patent rights maintains a record of such cases and I am pleased to be able to say that none has been reported in recent years.
      Perhaps the main welfare concern, however, is the view expressed by the Farm Animal Welfare Council and by other welfare interests that, while it may not cause pain, the process represents an additional interference with or indignity to the animal at what is already a stressful time, and that this interference is not in the interests of the animal. I respect that view and, as I said earlier, I take very seriously the concerns of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. That is why ministerial colleagues in the past and my veterinary officers have seen the process being carried out. It is performed by trained operatives who handle the animals carefully. The administration of the solution causes little discomfort and there is no evidence that the animals suffer undue stress. There is, of course, some added interference with the animal immediately before it is slaughtered which welfare interests find objectionable. However, the Government do not believe that the treatment can be considered inhumane and on balance we do not feel that we would be justified in banning the use of a process that is otherwise perfectly safe.
      I hope that what I have said will show that we have given very careful attention to the concerns that have been expressed about this treatment. We have not found it to be

      975
      inhumane and, on the evidence available, we still believe that we would not be justified in prohibiting it on welfare grounds. So long as the process is employed, I shall continue to keep the welfare aspects under review and will look carefully at any relevant new information which may become available.
      There is, however, another dimension to this matter, which my hon. Friend touched on, and which is very important. It concerns the rules of the European Community for trade in meat between member states. The present Community legislation does not apply to the production of enzyme-treated meat within member states for supply to their own domestic markets, but it does not generally permit trade in such meat between member states. At present, however, they may enter into bilateral agreements for trade in treated meat and the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have such an arrangement. Other member states do not employ the papain process and have never favoured its use, although for reasons which have never been really clear to us.
      I understand that Commission officials are even now preparing draft proposals for the production and marketing of meat under single market conditions, and are proposing that the marketing of enzyme treated meat should not be permitted. The Commission has not yet made a formal proposal to this effect but we expect it to do so and that it will have the support of the majority of our European partners. The adoption of such a rule would prevent the use of the pre-slaughter enzyme treatment. The question arises, therefore, as to whether the Government should seek in negotiations to obtain special arrangements
      976
      which would permit the treatment to continue. We are anxious that the common rules for meat should be agreed and applied as soon as possible as this will be in the best interests of our consumers and of our industry at large.
      I do not expect that it will be easy to reach agreement in Brussels speedily, but it would not be to our advantage to delay matters by making an issue of a process of which only limited use is being made and which may also be open to some criticism on animal welfare grounds. Indeed, as my hon. Friend knows, the United Kingdom is at the forefront in pressing for higher welfare standards throughout the Community. We are seeking to improve welfare standards for pigs kept in intensive farming systems and to get the veal crate ban, which will apply here from 1 January next year, adopted on a Community basis. For battery hens, we shall be urging improvements in welfare when the Community provisions are reviewed. It will not assist our case in pressing other member states to improve animal welfare standards if we leave open any possibility, however remote, of being accused of not practising what we preach.
      I have to say now, therefore, that for these reasons we have decided not to seek provision for the continuation of the pre-slaughter enzyme treatment under the single market rules. In these circumstances, those now using the process—
      The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
      Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past One o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will study the system of voluntary removal of a suspected child abuser from the home before trial, as in the United States of America.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We need to consider the issues which are raised by voluntary removal in relation to the Law Commission's recently issued consultative document "Domestic Violence and Occupation of the Family Home", including the American experience.

  Crime (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek a report from the chief constable of South Yorkshire on what proportion of crimes in South Yorkshire are screened out after the initial investigation; on what basis this occurs; and by which police division.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable of South Yorkshire who has recently carried out a survey throughout the force, that after the initial investigation has been completed about 20 per cent. of all recorded crimes are "screened out". Certain types of crime, including all serious crimes, are exempt from the screening process. Of the remainder, crimes are only screened out if there is insufficient information on which further investigation could usefully be conducted. Information about the proportion of crimes screened out in each division is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Football Grounds (Deaths)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how many deaths have taken place at Football Association grounds during each of the past 10 years, and as to how many of these deaths were caused by(a) physical problems, including fires, overcrowding, etc., (b) natural causes and (c) criminal acts.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information known to the Home Office about fatalities at Football Association grounds relates primarily to incidents at English Football League grounds. Details of the known incidents at such grounds over the last 10 years leading to fatalities among the general public are as follows:

  Date

  Location

  Number of Fatalities

  12 January 1980

  Middlesbrough

  2

  11 May 1985

  Bradford

  56

  11 May 1985

  Birmingham

  1

  500

  Date

  Location

  Number of Fatalities

  15 April 1989

  Sheffield

  95

  TOTAL

  154

  Immigration
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if citizens of Pakistan are now regarded as Commonwealth citizens for the purposes of the immigration rules.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Yes.

  NATO Exercises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the extent of involvement by his Department in NATO exercise Wintex/Cimex 1987 and exercise Wintex/Cimex 1989; what is the number of staff engaged in the exercise planning process and in the exercises themselves; and what are the ranks and responsibilities of the staff involved.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office plays its part in testing those procedures in which we have an interest. Staff participate as required; it would not be appropriate to supply the detail requested.

  Naturalisation
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long on average it is taking to process applications for British naturalisation; and when he would expect an application lodged in March 1988 to be resolved.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The average time taken to complete applications for naturalisation during September 1989 was 24 months. It is not possible to give a reliable estimate of the average time likely to be taken to complete applications received at any particular date.

  Prevention of Terrorism Act
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how observations from interested persons or organisations should be submitted for consideration by Lord Colville in his next annual report on the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 1989.

  Mr. David Waddington
  Observations, at this stage in writing, may be sent direct to Lord Colville or received on his behalf by the Home Office (Room 647) not later than 20 December 1989.

  Official Secrets Act
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to extend the provisions of the Official Secrets Act to the Channel Isles, the Isle of Man and the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary have no plans to do so. A person who commits an indictable offence under the Official Secrets Acts 1911

  501
  to 1989 in the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the Falkland Islands may however be tried for the offence in the United Kingdom.

TRANSPORT

  NATO Exercises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the extent of involvement by his Department in NATO exercise Wintex/Cimex 1987 and exercise Wintex/Cimex 1989; what is the number of staff engaged in the exercise planning process and in the exercises themselves; and what are the ranks and responsibilities of the staff involved.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department plays its part in testing those provisions in which we have an interest. Staff participate as required; it would not be appropriate for me to supply the details requested.

  a. Child casualties1: GB: 3rd Quarter, 1987 to 2nd Quarter, 1989

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  All severities

  Period

  Number

  Percentage change on same quarter in previous year

  Number

  Percentage change on same quarter in previous year

  Number

  Percentage change on same quarter in previous year

  1987 Quarter 3

  130

  —

  2,501

  —

  12,318

  —

  Quarter 4

  91

  —

  1,857

  —

  9,279

  —

  1988 Quarter 1

  81

  —

  1,755

  —

  8,637

  —

  Quarter 2

  125

  —

  2,144

  —

  11,057

  —

  Quarter 3

  100

  -23

  2,251

  -10

  11,698

  -5

  Quarter 4

  103

  13

  1,773

  -5

  9,658

  4

  1989 Quarter 12

  66

  -19

  1,831

  4

  8,916

  3

  Quarter 22

  96

  -23

  2,146

  —

  11,299

  2

  1 Casualties aged 14 or under.

  2 Provisional

  b. Adult casualties1: GB: 3rd Quarter, 1987 to 2nd Quarter, 1989

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  All severities

  Period

  Number

  Percentage change on same quarter in previous year

  Number

  Percentage change on same quarter in previous year

  Number

  Percentage change on same quarter in previous year

  1987 Quarter 3

  1,279

  —

  15,197

  —

  72,456

  —

  Quarter 4

  1,332

  —

  15,506

  —

  75,743

  —

  1988 Quarter 1

  1,023

  —

  13,254

  —

  66,111

  —

  Quarter 2

  1,052

  —

  12,992

  —

  64,627

  —

  Quarter 3

  1,196

  -6

  14,358

  -6

  73,290

  1

  Quarter 4

  1,372

  3

  15,034

  -3

  77,227

  2

  1989 Quarter 12

  1,112

  9

  12,153

  -8

  65,026

  -2

  Quarter 22

  1,037

  -1

  12,474

  -3

  68,544

  6

  1 Casualties aged 15 or over, or with unknown age.

  2 Provisional

  Roads (Sussex)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will be in a position to announce possible routes for the previously announced plans to dual the A27 between Lewes and Polegate; if he anticipates a major alteration to the existing road at any point; if he intends to proceed with the roundabout at the junction of the A26 Newhaven road; what measures he is considering in relation to the level crossing at Beddingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Accidents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) children and (b) adults have been killed or injured in road accidents since the new licensing laws were introduced and for the previous comparable period.

  Mr. Atkins
  The requested information is given in the following table. Results for 1989 are provisional. The change in the licensing laws took place on 22 August 1988, so that results for the third quarter of 1988 include approximately equal periods under the old and new regulations.

  For the three quarters following the change in licensing laws, the number of children killed was 11 per cent. lower than in the previous comparable period, the number seriously injured about the same, but overall casualties rose by 3 per cent.

  For adults the corresponding changes are a 3 per cent. rise in fatalities, a 5 per cent. fall in serious injuries and a 2 per cent. rise in all casualties.

  Quarterly results for road casualties are often erratic. There is nothing in the results to suggest that the change in licensing laws has had any marked effect on road accidents.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is too soon to be able to give detailed information about the timing and nature of the proposals for the improvement of the A27 between Lewes and Polegate. Consultants will be appointed shortly to undertake preliminary studies and to identify possible solutions on which to consult the public, possibly in 1991–92. Their brief will be to consider all feasible alternatives, including a combination of on-line and off-line options, and to address the problems of the Beddingham level crossing.
  503
  It is our intention to proceed in advance with the provision of a roundabout at the A26 junction. It is programmed for construction next year.

  Motorway and Trunk Road Schemes
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the major motorway and trunk road schemes which his Department has(a) let since the start of the current financial year and (b) plans to let during the rest of the financial year.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) on 3 November at column 343.

  Cycle Lanes (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the road mileage in each of the London boroughs that provide cycle lanes.

  Mr. Atkins
  Such information as is readily available about specific facilities for cyclists is given in DTP transport statistics report "Road Lengths in Great Britain in 1987–88", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Plutonium
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what proportion of accidents he anticipates a plutonium air transport cask, tested to the criteria recommended by the International Atomic Energy, Agency's standing advisory group on the safe transport of radioactive materials, would retain its integrity.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This is the subject of an ongoing study for further consideration at an IAEA advisory group meeting in 1990.

  Radioactive Material
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the basis for the recommendations of the standing advisory group on the safe transport of radioactive material of the International Atomic Energy Agency that transport regulations be amended to require testing such a flask at an impact speed of 85 m per second.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Two papers were presented at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) technical committee meeting in December 1988. This subject will be further considered at an IAEA advisory group meeting in 1990.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what technical progress has been made in the field of probability and consequence calculations for possible plutonium air transport cask accidents since the publication of the ACTRAM report.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Studies are continuing but in this complicated field I do not expect to be able to report progress in the relatively short term.

  High Speed Freight
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Government have any plans to provide for the operation of high speed rail freight services from the northern regions by-passing London into mainland Europe.
  504
  Mr. Portillo
  This is a matter for British Rail, which will shortly be setting out its proposals in the plan that it is publishing in compliance with section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987.

  London Assessment Studies
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport further to his reply to the right hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe) on 23 October at column 373, whether all London hon. Members will be given copies of all the four schemes; whether community groups concerned with the proposals will be sent all four copies of the schemes at no cost to themselves; and what will be the cost of the full report of each scheme.

  Mr. Atkins
  Hon. Members will receive copies of the consultants' reports which are relevant to their constituencies. Copies will also be provided for display in public libraries.

  Community groups will be able to purchase copies of the reports. The cost is yet to be decided. Free summaries will he available from the consultants on demand.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State For Transport, further to his reply to the right hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe) on 23 October at column 373, how long the consultation period for the London assessment, studies will be, once the consultants' schemes have been published; in what form he intends to lay his proposals before Parliament; who will be responsible for the consultation; which groups he will consult; and if he will give details of the consultative process.

  Mr. Atkins
  There will be an opportunity for anyone wishing to comment on the way forward to do so by late February 1990. Full details of the arrangements for making comments to the Department will be given when the consultants' reports are published in December.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, further to his reply to the right hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe) on 23 October at column 373, what has been the cost to date of the consultants; and on what basis the consultants will be retained after the publication of the results.

  Mr. Atkins
  The total cost of the four London assessment studies to date has been £8½ million.

  It is too early to say if and on what basis the consultants will be retained following publication of their final reports.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that no schemes based on London assessment studies will go ahead until a full public inquiry has been held in each area that is encompassed by the schemes.

  Mr. Atkins
  Any scheme, whether involving roads or public transport, which emerges as a result of decisions on the London assessment studies will be subject to the appropriate procedures.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to give a similar guarantee to the Lea valley and the other green areas involved in London assessment studies to that which he gave in respect of Parkland walk.
  505
  Mr. Atkins
  Each case must be considered on its merits in the light of the consultants' assessment of their options.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply to the right hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe) on 23 October at column 373, how the environmental implications of the schemes have been assessed and costed; what are the costs; what formula has been used to assess the environmental implications of the schemes; and whether he has taken any account of the recommendations of the Pearce report in assessing the value of green and open spaces.

  Mr. Atkins
  The study consultants are completing a full environmental assessment of all their options. The results of that work will appear in their reports.

  Mutfordlock Crossing
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, in the light of the absence of objections at the public inquiry into the Suffolk county council scheme to build a new crossing at Mutfordlock, Oulton Broad, Lowestoft, he will make it his policy to reach a decision on the scheme before announcing the next round of transport supplementary grants.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: The decision to confirm orders submitted by the Suffolk county council was issued on 31 October.

  Roads (East Anglia)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a further announcement on implementation of those proposals in the White Paper "Roads to Prosperity," which apply to roads in Suffolk and Norfolk.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: My right hon. Friend expects to publish a roads report later this year, setting out in a little more detail the schemes in the expanded road programme.

  He has announced his decision that the A11 Thetford bypass in Norfolk, currently under construction, is to be built now entirely to dual carriageway standard. This is the first of many major improvements that will come out of the expanded road programme.

  We are pressing ahead with the appointment of design agents for our new schemes and studies. We recently announced details of the appointments made so far of consultants and agent authorities to prepare 53 new road schemes and seven new studies. Further announcements on the remaining schemes will be made over the next few months.

  Speed Retarders
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the effect on accident levels on roads where speed retarders, such as sleeping policemen, have been introduced.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: The urban safety projects conducted jointly by the Department and local authorities indicate that low-cost "traffic calming" measures including road humps can reduce casualties by 10 to 15 per cent. in residential areas. Earlier trials road humps at selected sites (TRRL Digest LR878) achieved 50 per cent. casualty reductions. The new regulations we are making shortly will aid their use.

  A1
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints have been received about traffic delays on the A1; and if he will travel to the north of England by that road to assess the validity of such complaints.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: I am familiar with the problems motorists encounter on the A1. We have no record of the overall number of complaints made about delays. Those received are usually as a result of necessary roadworks to maintain and improve this very busy trunk road.

  The expanded trunk road programme announced earlier this year contains a number of schemes to improve the A1 from London to the Scottish border. It includes proposals to bring additional sections up to motorway standard.

  I have visited the A1 within the last two weeks.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current debt of the Severn bridge.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: The provisional accounts show a debt to the Consolidated Fund of £113·4 million at 31 March 1989.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rents
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of household income he treats as an affordable rent.

  Mr. Chope
  We expect landlords providing rented housing with the help of public subsidy to charge rents within the reach of those in low paid employment. It is for the landlords to decide the actual rents to be charged.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on how his new proposals for the poll tax safety net will affect Birmingham.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment published provisional exemplifications on 6 November which show community charge payers in Birmingham contributing £60 to the safety net in 1990–91. The safety net will be abolished in later years and they will make no contribution after 1990–91.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the numbers of adult residents of(a) each London borough and (b) each district council likely to be entitled to the maximum rebate during the first year of operation of the community charge in England and Wales; and if he will express these figures as a proportion of the estimated population of each local authority liable to community charge.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply. The information requested is not available.

  Empty Council Houses
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses were empty but available for letting in the northern region in April.

  Mr. Chope
  Information for April 1989 was reported by local authorities in their annual housing investment programme returns (HIP1).

  The number of empty local authority dwellings available for letting at this date in the northern region (excluding Cumbria) was 2,814.

  Sellafield
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many test boreholes British Nuclear Fuels plc will investigate to prove the suitability and acceptability of the geology at Sellafield for a deep repository for low and intermediate level radioactive wastes.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The numer of test boreholes that will have to be drilled, either to prove the suitability of the geology at Sellafield for a deep radioactive waste repository or to reject the site as unacceptable, depends on the results of the current investigations. The full extent of the drilling that will be required will only become clear as the programme of work proceeds.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to why British Nuclear Fuels plc is applying for planning permission to sink a second test borehole at the Sellafield site; what results were obtained from the first test borehole; what was the cost of the investigations surrounding the first test borehole; to whose budget this cost will be charged; what is expected to be the cost of the second test borehole; and if any further test boreholes are envisaged.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  British Nuclear Fuels plc has applied for planning permission to drill a second test borehole at their Sellafield site as part of a programme of work it is undertaking on behalf of UK Nirex Ltd., which is the organisation responsible for developing a deep repository in the United Kingdom for radioactive waste. The boreholes are required to confirm the geological suitability of the site. Although the first borehole is still incomplete, the results so far confirm the geological prognosis. The cost of drilling the boreholes is a matter for UK Nirex Ltd. The cost of all site investigations will be borne by the company. If the outcome of the first phase of investigations is favourable, further test boreholes would need to be drilled as part of the next phase of geological investigations.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's estimate of the number of homeless people under the age of 18 years.

  Mr. Chope
  The numbers of people under the age of 18 years among the households accepted as homeless are not reported by local authorities and my Department has no estimates.

  Water Main (South London)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the fourth collapse of the 30 in water main running through Battersea and Wandsworth and the steps being taken to prevent recurrence.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This is a matter for Thames Water, but I understand that it is doing all that it can to minimise such incidents; the most important measure to minimise the risk of failure of this pipeline will be the completion of the relevant section of the London ring main, expected to be in 1992.

  Earthquakes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by location and date the number of earthquakes that have been recorded in England and Wales during the last 10 years; what damage was recorded; and on what seismographic scale.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The seismic monitoring network which is operated by the British Geological Survey records several hundred earthquakes each year in Britain and offshore. However, only those above a magnitude of 2·5 on the Richter scale—about a dozen a year—are generally felt. Those recorded in the last decade in England and Wales are listed in the following table.

  In general. even where moderate shaking was felt, little or no damage was caused—though about a dozen events in the last decade have caused minor damage such as cracks to plaster and two events (at Longtown in Cumbria on Boxing Day 1979 and on the Lleyn peninsula, in north Wales in July 1984) caused damage to chimneys and roof tiles.

  The national monitoring network is currently being extended to improve its geographical coverage, e.g. in south-east England and Northern Ireland. This results from an initiative by my Department, together with the British Geological Survey, to bring together those in Government and industry with interests in seismic matters. My Department is also funding an 18-month research project, which started in September this year, to provide a preliminary assessment of seismic hazards and risk in the United Kingdom.

  Earthquakes with a Richter magnitude greater than 2·5 recorded in England and Wales by the British Geological Survey, 1979–89

  Year and Location

  Magnitude

  Date

  1979

  Mansfield, Notts.

  3·1

  7 October

  Mansfield, Notts

  3·0

  9 October

  Longtown, Cumbria

  4·8

  26 December

  1980

  Longtown, Cumbria

  4·1

  1 January

  Cwmbran, Gwent

  3·0

  12 January

  Longtown, Cumbria

  2·7

  25 January

  Longtown, Cumbria

  2·6

  28 January

  Longtown, Cumbria

  3·2

  7 May

  Talke area, Staffs

  2·7

  7 July

  Talke area, Staffs

  3·1

  8 July

  Stoke area, Staffs

  2·5

  17 July

  Stoke area, Staffs

  2·7

  19 July

  Longtown, Cumbria

  2·5

  30 July

  Stoke coalfield, Staffs

  3·0

  7 August

  Stoke coalfield, Staffs

  2·6

  14 August

  Talke area, Staffs

  3·2

  9 November

  Talke area, Staffs

  2·5

  9 November

  509

  Year and Location

  Magnitude

  Date

  Longtown, Cumbria

  3·5

  13 December

  1981

  Constantine, Cornwall

  3·5

  25 February

  Talke area, Staffs

  2·5

  6 April

  Stoke coalfield, Staffs

  3·1

  24 May

  Nottingham

  2·7

  2 June

  Liskeard, Cornwall

  2·5

  12 June

  Talke area, Staffs

  2·8

  5 August

  Bishop Auckland, Co. Durham

  2·5

  18 October

  Flamborough Head, Humberside

  3·7

  27 October

  Cwmbran, Gwent

  2·7

  9 November

  1982

  Pont-Faen, Powys

  2·6

  4 April

  Stoke on Trent, Staffs

  2·7

  9 April

  near Basingstoke, Hants

  3·0

  19 July

  near Ffestiniog, Gwynedd

  2·6

  9 August

  1983

  Wigan, Greater Manchester

  2·6

  28 November

  1984

  East Retford, Nottinghamshire

  3·2

  22 March

  near Weymouth, Dorset

  3·1

  3 April

  Felindre, Powys

  3·3

  15 April

  Nottingham

  3·1

  30 May

  Selby, North Yorkshire

  3·0

  4 June

  Lleyn peninsula, Gwynedd

  5·4

  19 July

  Lleyn peninsula, Gwynedd

  2·9

  19 July

  Lleyn peninsula, Gwynedd

  2·5

  19 July

  Lleyn peninsula, Gwynedd

  2·5

  20 July

  Lleyn peninsula, Gwynedd

  2·8

  23 July

  Lleyn peninsula, Gwynedd

  4·0

  29 July

  Lleyn peninsula, Gwynedd

  2·5

  29 July

  Lleyn peninsula, Gwynedd

  2·8

  30 July

  Lleyn peninsula, Gwynedd

  2·7

  4 August

  Lleyn peninsula, Gwynedd

  3·6

  6 August

  Lleyn peninsula, Gwynedd

  4·3

  18 August

  Accrington, Lancashire

  3·2

  13 October

  1985

  offshore Ramsgate, Kent

  3·0

  15 April

  near Scunthorpe, Humberside

  2·6

  1 June

  Black Mountains, Powys

  2·5

  21 August

  Hebden Bridge, West Yorkshire

  2·6

  16 November

  Buckingham

  2·5

  18 November

  Fleet, Hampshire

  2·7

  2 December

  1986

  Lleyn peninsula, Gwynedd

  2·7

  15 April

  Constantine, Cornwall

  2·9

  2 September

  Oxford

  2·9

  26 December

  1987

  Market Drayton, Salop

  2·6

  23 February

  Bridgnorth, Salop

  2·5

  12 March

  Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire

  2·7

  1 May

  Manchester

  2·6

  5 December

  1988

  Ambleside, Cumbria

  3·2

  12 September

  Ambleside, Cumbria

  3·0

  12 September

  Bridgwater, Somerset

  2·8

  23 October

  1989

  No earthquakes with a magnitude greater than 2·5 have yet been recorded.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 Nirex reserve sites for the disposal of radioactive waste.
  510
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not received a list of the reserve sites identified by Nirex.

  Water Privatisation
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the total gain per year to each of the water plcs as a result of writing off all their debt to the Exchequer;

  (2) what is the loss to the Exchequer as a result of the non-payment of interest on loans to the water authorities which have been written off.

  Mr. Howard
  The write-off of debt owed to the Exchequer by the 10 water plcs is just one element of the capital restructuring of the industry, which is designed to enable the companies to carry out their functions within the new regulatory framework set up by the Water Act. The write-off will result in a corresponding reduction in the assets of the national loans fund, but the Government will have new assets mostly in the form of shares in the holding companies, proceeds from the sale of which will be paid to the Exchequer to the benefit of taxpayers. The size of these proceeds will depend on market conditions at the time of the sale of shares. It is not possible to make meaningful comparisons with what would have occurred had the previous capital structures and regulatory framework remained in place.

  Mortgage Defaulters
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households defaulted on mortgage repayments in the latest available month; and if he will give the figures for the same period in 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: The available information about mortgage arrears relates only to mortgages advanced by building societies and local authorities. The Building Societies Association records numbers of arrears relating to building society mortgages on a half-yearly basis. The latest information is for June 1989 and is compared with the figures for earlier years in the following table.

  Building society mortgage arrears: united Kingdom

  Loans over 6 months in arrears

  June

  Number

  Per cent.

  1986

  66,980

  0·97

  1987

  63,150

  0·88

  1988

  57,880

  0·79

  1989

  54,360

  0·71

  My Department collects annual information on arrears in respect of mortgages made by local authorities. The information for recent years is shown in the following table.

  Local authority mortgage arrears: England

  Loans over 6 months in arrears

  March

  Number

  Per cent.

  1986

  15,840

  3·1

  1987

  13,200

  3·1

  1988

  9,040

  2·5

  1989

  7,760

  2·5

ENERGY

  North Sea Oil
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the total production of North sea oil since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department's most recent published figures show that the cumulative production of oil, condensate and natural gas liquids between the end of 1979 and August of this year stood at 1,069·2 million tonnes—this includes a provisional figure for the month of August.

  Pressurised Water Reactors
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what studies he has undertaken into the financial viability of the pressurised water reactor programme announced by his predecessor.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The financial viability of new power station projects is a matter for the body concerned. The CEGB presented evidence to the Hinkley C inquiry on the comparison between the costs of a PWR and fossil-fuelled generation.

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any proposals to speed up the flue gas desulphurisation programme.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The flue gas desulphurisation programme is an operational matter for the industry.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will amend the Electricity Act so as to retain the discretion of the Secretary of State to award second-tier direct-contract electricity supply licences after privatisation to premises with a load under 1 MW.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No. The Electricity Act provides for the Secretary of State to exercise such discretion within his general duties under the Act.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what arrangements he proposes for selling to the privatised British distribution companies electricity generated by French nuclear power stations and imported via the cross channel connectors; what companies he proposes to establish for this purpose; whether he has appointed any chairman-designate to such companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Public electricity suppliers, or any other suppliers, will be free to enter into commercial arrangements with Electricite de France for the purchase of electricity. We have no intention of establishing a company to import electricity from France.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of price per KW of the nuclear levy through which the area electricity boards will recoup the cost of meeting their non-fossil-fuel obligation after privatisation.
  512
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The fossil fuel levy will depend on the prices charged for nuclear and fossil-fuelled electricity. Contract negotiations are currently taking place. I cannot anticipate their outcome.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy with whom he proposes that the obligations to supply electricity will rest after privatisation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Obligations to supply electricity will rest with those authorised to supply by licence or exemption under sections 5 and 6 of the Electricity Act 1989.

  Internationally Traded Energy
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the change in internationally traded heavy fuel oil prices over the month to 25 September; and what was the fluctuation in internationally traded coal prices over the same period.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The change in the spot price of heavy fuel oil at Rotterdam over the month to September 25, 1989 and the fluctuation in internationally traded coal prices over the same period are as follows:

  Fuel Oil Rotterdam $/tonne

  Steam Coal Amsterdam/ Rotterdam $/tonne

  August 25

  87·0

  43·5

  September 25

  98·0

  43·5

  Percentage change

  12·6

  0·0

  Note:

  All prices are FOB spot prices for 1 per cent. Sulphur content.

  Sources:

  Petroleum Argus.

  Coal Week International.

  Shell Ethylene Pipeline
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of Shell Chemicals United Kingdom Limited north western ethylene pipeline proposals.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Shell Chemicals UK Limited has submitted an application under the Pipelines Act 1962 for authorisation to construct a cross-country pipeline from Grangemouth to Stanlow for the conveyance of ethylene. It has been instructed to publish and serve the necessary notices under the Pipelines Act 1962, without prejudice to the right of the Secretary of State subsequently to refuse the application.

  An environmental statement under the Electricity and Pipe-line Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1989, has been prepared by Shell.

  Details of Shell's proposals and copies of the environmental statement are available for public inspection at the offices of planning authorities along the proposed pipeline route and at the offices of my Department.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list both those executive agencies for the Civil Service already set up with their start up dates and those announced as candidates with their target dates, together with the number of staff in each agency or prospective agency.

  Mr. Luce
  The current list of those Government activities already established as executive agencies under the Next Steps initiative, together with the number of staff employed and their start up dates is as follows:

  Executive agency

  Staff numbers

  Start up date

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  1,550

  1 August 1988

  Companies House

  1,150

  3 October 1988

  HMSO

  3,200

  14 December 1988

  National Weight and Measures Laboratory

  50

  18 April 1989

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  300

  20 April 1989

  Resettlement Agency

  550

  24 May 1989

  Civil Service College

  200

  6 June 1989

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  50

  6 July 1989

  Historic Royal Palaces

  350

  1 October 1989

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  300

  30 October 1989

  For the current list of candidates for executive agency status announced by Departments, together with the numbers of staff employed, I refer the hon. Member to the appendix to the Government reply to the Fifth Report from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee (CM841, published on 30 October). Target dates for individual launches are primarily a matter for the Ministers responsible.

  Promotions
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will provide an estimate of the administrative cost per promotee in Civil Service promotions from executive officer to higher executive officer.

  Mr. Luce
  This information is not held centrally.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the subjects on which he is not prepared to answer parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: It is not possible to provide a definitive and exhaustive list of subjects within my responsibilities on which I might exceptionally decline to answer questions on grounds other than cost and commercial confidence. Each question tabled to me will continue to be considered on its merits.

  Ulster Museum
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to put the security arrangements for the Ulster museum out to competitive tender.
  514
  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: The Department of Education is presently considering the results of a market testing exercise conducted by the Ulster museum into the possibility of putting a number of its services, including security, out to competitive tender.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Northern Region
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will list major inward investment in the Northern region since 1983, giving the cost of each project, the amount of Government grant and the number of jobs involved.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Major inward investment decisions announced for the Northern region since 1 January 1983 are as follows:

  Major Inward Investments in the Northern Region since 1983

  Company

  Jobs

  Project Costs £.000

  RSA Grant £,000

  Hamilton Ltd

  217

  1,106

  225

  Tolaram Polymers Ltd

  61

  14,377

  350

  Brandtex Ltd

  127

  347

  25

  Electrolux Ltd

  101

  4,060

  611

  S P Tyres Ltd

  450

  2,132

  Nil

  Nissan UK Manufacturing Ltd

  2,700

  349,900

  35,000

  NSK Bearings Europe Ltd

  108

  15,093

  450

  Black and Decker

  500

  9,760

  1,000

  Draeger Ltd

  128

  2,385

  266

  TC Industries of Europe Ltd

  108

  5,970

  1,295

  Tabuchi Electric (UK) Ltd

  185

  2,983

  300

  Superbadge Ltd

  116

  1,402

  383

  Stewart-Warner Ltd

  100

  2,470

  350

  Black and Decker

  409

  22,000

  2,450

  British Alcan Aluminium Ltd

  367

  5,165

  1,500

  Komatsu Ltd

  262

  16,500

  1,200

  Liner Manufacturing Ltd

  202

  616

  200

  NSK Bearings Europe Ltd

  230

  32,000

  1,600

  THC Fabricators UK Ltd

  170

  6,151

  575

  Philips Components Ltd

  150

  9,909

  900

  Kodak Ectona Fibres Ltd

  237

  57,800

  2,000

  Grove Coles Ltd

  294

  4,395

  800

  House of Mayfair

  162

  6,500

  700

  Black & Decker

  665

  9,910

  2,000

  Key Tech Europe Ltd

  260

  11,288

  1,200

  Philips Components

  419

  4,279

  500

  F Hills & Sons Ltd

  377

  820

  80

  Transfer All Purpose Foils Ltd

  130

  5,344

  819

  Swaddlers Ltd

  135

  8,780

  950

  Newcastle Chronicle and Journal Ltd

  250

  5,372

  700

  Mitsumi Electric

  400

  2,500

  Nil

  TRW Repa Ltd

  250

  900

  1Nil

  Northern Contractors Ltd

  250

  1—

  Nil

  Winchmore Knitting Factory Ltd

  285

  2,600

  Nil

  Goldstar Electric Ltd

  330

  8,000

  Nil

  Basf Chemicals Ltd

  100

  6,000

  Nil

  Swilynn (UK) Ltd

  505

  14,145

  2,950

  Nissan UK Manufacturing Ltd

  1,060

  216,000

  14,400

  Millicom Info Systems Ltd

  180

  3,047

  450

  Cookson Fukuda Ltd

  79

  24,318

  650

  Millicom Cellular UK Ltd

  300

  3,558

  450

  Hashimoto Forming Industry Co Ltd

  135

  9,850

  1,500

  Fujitsu Microelectronics Ltd

  500

  400,000

  30,000

  3M UK Ltd

  112

  11,882

  1,700

  1 Not published.

  1. Major inward investment projects have been defined as those first time investment, or expansions of existing investment, by foreign owned companies which involve capital costs of over £5 million

  515
  and/or the creation or safeguarding of 100 or more jobs.

  2. Figures supplied for government grant are for offers of regional Selective Assistance (RSA) accepted by foreign-owned companies since 1 January 1983. Comparable information on other forms of assistance is not readily available. (Not all inward investments receive RSA).

  3. In accordance with usual practice the inclusion of individual cases has been restricted to those already announced or published. Details of nine further inward investment projects involving capital spend of £170·4 million and jobs of 3,132 have yet to be published.

  4. The Northern Region is the North East Region plus Cumbria.

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases of suspected insider dealing were referred by the Stock Exchange to his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  Insider dealing did not become a criminal offence until 23 June 1980. Since then the number of cases of suspected insider dealing referred to the Department of Trade and Industry by the Stock Exchange each year is as follows:

  Number

  19801

  7

  1981

  18

  1982

  23

  1983

  17

  1984

  12

  1985

  6

  1986

  14

  1987

  30

  1988

  25

  19892

  26

  1 From 23 June 1980.

  2 To date.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many preliminary reports on suspected cases on insider dealing were sent by the Stock Exchange insider dealing unit in each month in 1988.

  Mr. Redwood
  The number of reports on suspected cases of insider dealing sent by the Stock Exchange insider dealing group to the Department of Trade and Industry in each month in 1988 was as follows:

  Number

  January

  1

  February

  1

  March

  1

  April

  1

  May

  1

  June

  2

  July

  2

  August

  2

  September

  1

  October

  2

  November

  9

  December

  2

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of the European co-ordinating regulations on insider trading.

  Mr. Redwood
  The EC Council of Ministers unanimously agreed a common position on the draft directive on co-ordinating regulations on insider dealing on 18 July 1989. This common position has now been 516
  considered by the European Parliament and the directive is likely to be adopted by the Council of Ministers on 13 November. Member states will be required to implement it by 1 June 1992.

  On 13 September the United Kingdom became the first country to sign the Council of Europe convention on insider trading. Like the directive, the convention provides for co-operation between states that have ratified it but differs from the directive in not setting minimum standards for national regulations.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in what circumstances he would now reopen cases referred to him by the Stock Exchange since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to possible insider dealing offences. Insider dealing did not become an offence until June 1980.

  All cases are considered on their merits. If significant new evidence of a possible offence came to light my right hon. Friend would be prepared to reconsider a case where it had earlier been decided that no further action was appropriate.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the Government's policy towards granting the Stock Exchange powers of prosecution for cases of insider dealing.

  Mr. Redwood
  Clause 195 of the Companies Bill provides for the Secretary of State to consent to the bringing of prosecutions in respect of insider dealing offences by persons or bodies other than himself. It is intended to use this power to consent to such prosecutions by the International Stock Exchange in suitable cases.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the latest figure for the numbers employed in his Department to investigate cases of insider dealing.

  Mr. Redwood
  Most investigations into possible insider dealing offences are undertaken by inspectors appointed under section 177 of the Financial Services Act. There are currently 32 such inspectors, of whom one is an official of the Department. There is in my Department a unit of six staff, whose main task is to consider possible insider dealing cases for investigation by inspectors, to liaise with such inspectors and to follow up inspectors' reports. In addition, lawyers from solicitors branch give advice and conduct prosecutions as necessary. They are supported by professional investigation officers who are involved as needed.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the number of cases of suspected insider dealing where proceedings for prosecution were instituted by his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  Insider dealing did not become a criminal offence until 23 June 1980. Since then the number of cases of suspected insider dealing offences where proceedings for prosecutions were instituted by the Department of Trade and Industry in each year is as follows:
  517

  Number

  11980

  0

  1981

  1

  1982

  1

  1983

  1

  1984

  0

  1985

  0

  1986

  2

  1987

  3

  1988

  3

  21989

  7

  1 From 23 June 1980.

  2 To date.

  Prosecutions for insider dealing offences have also been instituted by other prosecuting authorities.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases of insider dealing referred by the Stock Exchange to his Department have been reopened since the passage of the Financial Services Act 1986.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Ferranti
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the Coopers Lybrand interim report on the current Ferranti situation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 2 November 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  No. This is a matter for the Ferranti board which commissioned the report.

THE ARTS

  Libraries (Model Byelaws)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make it his policy that paragraph 4 of the model byelaws for library authorities issued by his Department will not be used as justification for excluding people with physical disabilities, mental handicaps or AIDS from entering and using libraries.

  Mr. Luce
  Model byelaw 4 was intended to give library authorities the power to exclude from public libraries persons who are offensively unclean or suffering from infectious or contagious diseases. Application of the byelaw is at the discretion of library officers and they, I believe, in exercising their power, act reasonably and with justification in the interests of all the users of the library.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received from disability organisations regarding the model byelaws for library authorities issued by his office.

  Mr. Luce
  Within the last two years the only representation I have received has been from the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation about the public libraries' discretion to admit powered wheelchairs and library users with infectious or contagious diseases.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he proposes to revise the model byelaws issued to library authorities.
  518
  Mr. Luce
  I shall consider the need for a revision of the model byelaws after secondary legislation arising from the Local Government and Housing Bill 1989 is complete.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether the model byelaws issued by his Department for use by library authorities permit libraries to refuse admission to disabled people using powered wheelchairs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  Model byelaws allow local authorities, in framing their own byelaws, to regulate the use of their facilities and the conduct of persons in premises where these facilities are provided.

  Model byelaw 5 specifies that the consent of a library officer is required before a wheeled vehicle, other than an invalid chair, can be brought into a library. The model byelaw allows library authorities to limit the exception to hand-propelled invalid chairs. I believe that, where library authorities have chosen to give the library officers the power to exclude powered wheelchairs, this is done reasonably and with due consideration to the circumstances that prevail in the library at that time.

  Non-professional Arts
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how much his Department currently spends in supporting the non-professional arts.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: The Office of Arts and Libraries does not fund arts organisations directly: that is the responsibility of the Arts Council and the Regional Arts Associations. The council's policy is not to fund amateur activities which, by their nature, are largely self-supporting. It does provide professional support to some amateur activity, as well as funding festivals and other events which may include some amateur work, but it is not possible to cost this accurately.

  EC Culture
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the competence of the European Community in cultural matters.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: The Treaty of Rome makes no specific provision regarding culture as such, although there is a reference in article 36 to the protection of national treasures.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what assessment he has made of the cultural dimension of the policies of the European Community.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: The meetings of the European Ministers responsible for cultural matters provide a useful opportunity to work together and exchange information on matters of mutual interest.

  Arts Budget
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what evidence he has that national arts companies and organisations are budgeting for a deficit.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: My attention has been drawn to the difficulties that some arts

  519
  organisations have encountered as a result of price movements and other developments. The Arts Council expects those organisations to take account of these factors in setting their budgets for the coming year.

  Sale Room Prices
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what his Department estimates is the rise in inflation of sale room prices for works of art over the past 10 years.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: Based on information available for the period September 1979–July 1989 the rise in prices is as follows:

  Percentage increase

  Old Master Paintings

  266

  19th Century European Paintings

  254

  Impressionist Paintings

  974

  Modern Paintings

  880

  Continental Ceramics

  138

  Chinese Ceramics

  204

  English Silver

  188

  Continental Silver

  165

  French and Continental Furniture

  169

  English Furniture

  314

  Aggregate

  396

  Tate in the North
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his latest estimate of the cost of opening all floors of the Tate in the North, at Liverpool.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: The development of the Tate gallery, Liverpool was planned in two phases. The second phase, which includes the conversion of a fourth floor, is estimated to cost £3 million at 1988 prices. The Tate gallery is raising these funds from the private sector.

  School Visits
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his latest estimate of the fall in visits by school parties to(a) theatres and (b) museums.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: I am currently monitoring the information available with the help of the Museums and Galleries Commission and the Arts Council.

  £ thousand

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  British Museum

  1,517

  1,692

  1,590

  1,617

  1,737

  1,460

  1,400

  1,400

  1,400

  1,400

  British Museum (Natural History)

  113

  157

  171

  181

  190

  190

  190

  190

  190

  190

  Imperial War Museum

  90

  110

  87

  97

  147

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  National Gallery

  3,109

  2,930

  2,988

  3,331

  3,331

  2,750

  2,750

  2,750

  2,750

  2,750

  National Maritime Museum

  244

  178

  182

  203

  203

  205

  205

  205

  205

  205

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  750

  1750

  National Portrait Gallery

  291

  302

  278

  310

  301

  310

  310

  310

  310

  310

  Science Museum

  355

  362

  336

  434

  416

  461

  375

  375

  375

  375

  Tate Gallery

  1,888

  1,794

  1,860

  2,041

  1,815

  1,815

  1,815

  1,815

  1,815

  1,815

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  1,130

  1,160

  1,184

  1,320

  1,320

  1,145

  1,145

  1,145

  1,145

  1,145

  Ministers of Culture
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will list the meetings of the European Ministers of Culture that(a) he and (b) his predecessor Ministers have attended to represent officially Her Majesty's Government since 1979.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]:

  (a) I have attended the following meetings as Minister for the Arts:

  EC Ministers of Culture Brussels

  —20 December 1985

  EC Ministers of Culture Amsterdam

  —13 June 1986

  EC Ministers of Culture Brussels

  —12–14 November 1986

  Council of Europe 5th Conference of European Culture Ministers, Sintra

  —15–17 September 1987

  EC Ministers of Culture Copenhagen

  —10–11 December 1987

  EC Ministers of Culture Brussels

  —27 May 1988

  EC Ministers of Culture Athens

  —28–30 November 1988

  EC Ministers of Culture Santiago de Compostela

  —30–31 March 1989

  EC Ministers of Culture Brussels

  — 17–18 May 1989

  EC Ministers of Culture Blois

  —2 November 1989

  (b) I regret that full information concerning my predecessors' attendances at the meetings concerned is not readily available.

  National Galleries and Museums (Correspondence)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will place in the Library a copy of the letter from the chairmen of national galleries and museums, which he received in July.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: I do not propose to do so.

  Grants
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will publish a table showing the current level of grants by(a) the Arts Council and (b) the regional arts associations to enable client arts companies to pursue (i) social, (ii) educational and (iii) local activities.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: I am informed that it is not possible to give a precise breakdown on the basis of these categories.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will publish tables showing the level of purchase grants in(a) cash and (b) real terms for each national gallery and museum in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: Purchase grants for each of the national museums and galleries for which I am responsible have been as follows:
  521

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Wallace Collection

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2—

  After adjustment by the GDP deflator, the figures are:

  British Museum

  1,517

  1,542

  1,353

  1,315

  1,346

  1,073

  996

  947

  882

  836

  British Museum (Natural History)

  113

  143

  146

  147

  147

  140

  135

  128

  120

  114

  Imperial War Museum

  90

  100

  74

  79

  114

  73

  71

  68

  63

  60

  National Gallery

  3,109

  2,670

  2,542

  2,709

  2,582

  2,020

  1,957

  1,860

  1,733

  1,643

  National Maritime Museum

  244

  162

  155

  165

  157

  151

  146

  139

  129

  122

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  473

  1448

  National Portrait Gallery

  291

  275

  237

  252

  240

  228

  221

  210

  195

  185

  Science Museum

  355

  330

  286

  353

  322

  339

  267

  254

  236

  224

  Tate Gallery

  1,888

  1,634

  1,583

  1,660

  1,582

  1,333

  1,292

  1,227

  1,144

  1,084

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  1,130

  1,060

  1,007

  1,073

  1,023

  841

  815

  774

  722

  684

  Wallace Collection

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2—

  1 The National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside was established in 1986.

  2 The terms of the bequest to the nation preclude acquisitions.

  PSA Buildings
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts which national museums and galleries have not yet accepted responsibility for their buildings from the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: All of the national museums and galleries sponsored by my Department are now responsible for their building and maintenance programmes and received grant-in-aid for these purposes.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Public Sector Employees
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that the agreement of trade unions is sought prior to any changes to remove employment rights from public sector employees as part of any future plans to privatise public sector jobs.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Government ensure that there is appropriate consultation with employees and their representatives about changes that affect them.

  Northern Region
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many small businesses have been registered for value added tax in the Northern region for each year since 1983; and how many have been deregistered.

  Mr. Ryder
  Records are not maintained by size of business or in such a way that will enable figures for the Northern region to be identified with precision. However, the local VAT offices at Carlisle, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, Washington and Middlesbrough cover an area bounded by Carlisle and Berwick in the north to Barrow and Scarborough in the south.

  The numbers of VAT registrations and deregistrations processed by these offices in the years in question were:

  Year

  Registrations

  Deregistrations

  1983

  6,679

  5,595

  1984

  6,664

  5,859

  1985

  7,456

  7,521

  1986

  7,745

  7,343

  522

  Year

  Registrations

  Deregistrations

  1987

  7,926

  6,648

  1988

  9,756

  7,386

  19891

  7,803

  5,821

  1 to 30 September

  Greater London(Legislation)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure that prints of legislation relating to London and Greater London such as Greater London Council (General Powers) Acts are available to members of the public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Greater London Council (General Powers) Acts and other local Acts relating to Greater London Council matters were published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, from which copies may still be obtained.

  NATO Exercises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the extent of involvement by his Department in NATO exercise Wintex/Cimex 1987 and exercise Wintex/Cimex 1989; what is the number of staff engaged in the exercise planning process and in the exercises themselves; and what are the posts, ranks and responsibilities of the staff involved.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Treasury plays its part in testing those procedures in which we have an interest. Staff participate as required; it would not be appropriate for me to supply the details requested.

  Business Statistics Office (Newport)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff have been employed in the business statistics office in Newport in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Lilley
  The number of staff in post at the Business Statistics Office at 1 April of each of the last five years were:

  Number

  1985

  705·0

  1986

  706·5

  1987

  682·5

  1988

  660·5

  1989

  658·0

  Imports
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage rate of growth of imports year by year from 1984 to 1989 of(a) capital goods and (b) consumer goods.

  Overseas Trade Statistics basis

  Percentage change on previous year:

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  (a) Capital goods

  18

  7·0

  1·5

  11·0

  24

  121

  (b) Consumer goods (including passenger motor cars)

  3

  2·5

  9·0

  8·5

  16

  117

  1 1989 figure is the first 9 months of 1989 over the same period in 1988.

  Excluding the more erratic items—ships, North Sea installations and aircraft.

  Official Report
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the price of the Official Report.

  Mr. Ryder
  Following a review by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, I have authorised increases of 65p in the prices of the daily part and Standing Committee debates and of £3 in the price of the weekly part. Subscription rates will he adjusted accordingly and the scale of charges for reprints of Members' speeches appearing in the Official Report will also be raised. These increases, coupled with careful control of production costs, are further steps towards eliminating the central subsidy required, a goal that has now been achieved with respect to the fortnightly index, bound volumes and the volume index where prices will remain unchanged. The rises will come into effect from the beginning of the new Session.

  Small Business Tax Accounts
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Inland Revenue are taking to simplify tax accounts for small businesses.

  Mr. Lilley
  As from next April, detailed tax accounts will no longer be needed from many small businesses. Taxpayers will still need to keep accurate business records, but three line accounts will be accepted with tax returns. This relaxation could simplify dealing with tax for up to a million small businesses.

  Civil Service Pay
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) by what percentage the pay of(a) grade 7 civil servants and (b) grade 5 civil servants would need to rise to equal the median pay levels of comparable private sector jobs;

  (2) what was the outcome of the recent exercise on comparisons of senior Civil Service pay levels with the private sector.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: This year's pay negotiations for civil servants at grades 5 to 7 were informed by a survey of data on private sector pay levels and benefits for comparable jobs. The results of the survey are confidential to the parties and cannot therefore be released.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will raise the pay levels of civil servants to match those of comparable jobs in the private sector;
  524
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The percentage growth in the volume of imports in each year from 1984 is as follows:

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect on morale of the comparative levels of pay in the Civil Service and the private sector;

  (3) when he next intends to undertake a comparison of private sector pay levels against Civil Service pay levels.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: The longer term pay determination arrangements under the new flexible pay agreements, now covering nearly all civil servants, provide for surveys of private sector pay levels every four years. The appropriate data on pay for comparable jobs in the private sector are taken into account together with other factors, such as affordability, recruitment and retention patterns etc., in each of the negotiations about pay increases for civil servants. Morale can be influenced by many factors, one of which may be pay. As far as pay is concerned, all the recent settlements under the new flexible pay agreements have been overwhelmingly accepted by staff.

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report details of those sections of his Department which have been relocated in the last five years, indicating the sites to which they have been moved; whether consideration is being given to future relocation of London-based sections of his Department to sites outside London; and whether the central Borders of Scotland has been identified as a suitable area for any future moves.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: No sections of the Treasury have been relocated in the last five years. A review of the location of its activities is taking place under the policy that my right hon. Friend the, then, Paymaster General announced on 31 March 1988 at columns 610–11. No decisions have yet been taken.

  War Games
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if war games used by firms to instil aggressiveness are deductible against tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: Payments which are not of a capital nature are deductible for tax purposes in calculating trading profits if they are made wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the payer's trade.

  Income
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the income per capita in each of the regions of England as a percentage of the United Kingdom level in 1979–80 and in each succeeding year up the latest available year.

  (2) what was the income per capita in Northern Ireland as a percentage of the United Kingdom level in 1979–80 and in each succeeding year up to the latest available year.

  Total personal sector income per capita

  (United Kingdom = 100)

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  North

  90·4

  92·4

  93·7

  95·0

  92·4

  90·6

  92·5

  91·7

  91·2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  93·6

  94·2

  93·0

  94·1

  93·1

  91·2

  92·6

  93·2

  92·5

  East Midlands

  96·1

  95·8

  95·6

  95·6

  95·3

  96·3

  95·1

  95·3

  93·5

  East Anglia

  95·1

  97·0

  96·1

  95·5

  95·2

  99·6

  99·1

  97·7

  98·9

  Greater London

  123·2

  122·6

  124·2

  122·3

  121·9

  122·8

  125·0

  124·1

  126·6

  Rest of South East

  109·1

  109·2

  110·5

  109·7

  111·8

  112·1

  111·2

  111·7

  112·5

  South East

  114·8

  114·6

  116·0

  114·7

  115·8

  116·3

  116·6

  116·6

  118·0

  South West

  95·2

  97·9

  96·2

  96·9

  97·5

  97·1

  96·6

  96·6

  96·7

  West Midlands

  95·1

  91·5

  89·2

  88·9

  88·8

  87·9

  88·4

  89·2

  89·0

  North West

  94·5

  94·6

  94·3

  94·0

  93·1

  92·7

  92·4

  92·5

  91·7

  Wales

  89·3

  90·2

  87·7

  89·6

  88·9

  87·5

  87·9

  85·4

  84·2

  Scotland

  94·3

  94·1

  95·8

  96·6

  96·7

  97·8

  96·0

  96·9

  95·9

  Northern Ireland

  83·8

  81·7

  82·4

  84·7

  84·5

  84·4

  82·2

  82·2

  81·5

  The figures for the last four years were published in Economic Trends No. 421 November 1988; a copy of which is available in the Library. They are income estimates for the personal sector which in addition to households include private non-profit making bodies, unincorporated private businesses, private trusts and the funds of life assurance companies and pension schemes. The figures include income from employment, self-employment, rent (including imputed rent of owner-occupied dwellings), dividends plus net interest and social security benefits.

  Figures for 1987 are provisional and a revised set including the year 1988 will be available in March-April 1990.

  Figures for income per capita of the household sector (as opposed to the personal sector) have also been produced for 1984 and 1987 and these were published in Economic Trends No. 429 July 1989; a copy of which is available in the Library.

  The per capita income is calculated by dividing total income by resident population, including children, in each region.

  Trader Salesmen
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what resources he is making available to sanctioning the tax returns of self-employed trader salesmen in London.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the obligations and responsibilities required of by Her Majesty's Government in the event of the United Kingdom joining the exchange rate mechanism.
  526
  (3) what was the income per capita in Scotland as a percentage of the United Kingdom level in 1979–80 and in each succeeding year up to the latest available year.

  (4) what was the income per capita in Wales as a percentage of the United Kingdom level in 1979–80 and in each succeeding year up to the latest available year.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: Figures for total personal sector income per capita are available for calendar rather than for fiscal years and these are as follows:

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 31 October 1989]: These are contained in the resolution of the European Council of 5 December 1978 on the establishment of the European monetary system (EMS) and related matters.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Fylingdales
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held between the Soviet Union and the United States concerning the future of Fylingdales early warning station; and what was the outcome.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The United States Administration keep us well briefed on those aspects of their talks with the Soviet Government which could affect our interests. It is not for us to divulge details.

  Refusniks
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations have been made to the Russian authorities about the case of Marina Gorelik of Moscow.

  (2) what representations have been made to the Russian authorities about the case of Isaak Aronovich Shifrin of Leningrad.

  Mr. Maude
  We have not previously raised these particular cases with the Soviet authorities but we will be happy to do so if the hon. Member will provide details.

  Loan Service Personnel
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what amount of military aid he allocated in 1987–88 for the provision of loan service personnel to Belize;
  527
  (2) what amount of military aid he allocated in 1987–88 for the provision of loan service personnel to Thailand;

  (3) what amount of military aid he allocated in 1987–88 for the provision of United Kingdom military training for Belize service personnel;

  (4) what amount of military aid he allocated in 1987–88 for the provision of United Kingdom training for Thai service personnel.

  Mr. Maude
  It is not our practice to disclose the cost of assistance to individual countries.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Computer Centre (Livingston)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many firms submitted bids to run the Department's computer centre at Livingston.

  Mrs. Gillian Shepherd
  After considering the capabilities of a number of different firms, three companies were invited to tender for running the computer operations at ACC1 Livingston.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether his Department or staff working within his Department, submitted a hid to retain in-house the contract for running the computer centre at Livingston.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The option of running the area computer centre (ACC) in-house was considered on the basis of a full assessment by the line managers concerned of how the ACC would be run in-house under Civil Service management, in the same way as the Department's existing large computer centres. A bid was not made by the Department's staff. The ACC operations at Livingston constitute new work and the jobs of existing civil servants are not affected.

  Computer Contracts
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans his Department has for putting out to tender other contracts running different aspects of the Department's computer work.

  Mrs. Gillian Shepherd
  It is the Government's policy to seek value for money by testing the market. Further computer work in the Department may be put out to tender. The decision to do so will be made on a case-by-case basis as the need arises.

  Unemployed Claimants
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if when unemployed claimants take advantage of employment on trial and subsequently leave the job within the period in which they are allowed to without being held to be voluntarily unemployed transitional protection received during the previous claim will be reinstated in full if they are home owners who were receiving full help with their mortgage interest payments, will these be reinstated in full; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Yes, providing the claimant satisfies the conditions for employment on trial for 528
  unemployment benefit purposes. We have also ensured that people who undertake employment for a trial period will continue to receive the higher earnings disregard, and similar concessions have been made available to people, such as lone parents, who are not required to be available for employment.

  Homeless Families
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to restore the £6 housing benefit subsidy per week for each child aged under 11 years in a homeless family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation which resulted from recent changes in the benefit system.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The arrangements for subsiclising housing benefit paid to homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, including those with children under the age of 11, enable local authorities to receive an equivalent level of support in 1989–90 to that provided to them through income support prior to 10 April 1989.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the advertising undertaken to alert potential beneficiaries of their possible entitlement to the extra £5 pension this autumn with a view to ascertaining the extent to which pensioners were misled by those adverts, and to avoiding any such inadvertent confusion in future.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I do not accept that the advertising was misleading. One of the major intentions of the publicity was to ensure that those in doubt made a claim.

  Hostel Board and Lodging Charges
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the Department will monitor the changes in the hostel board and lodging charges in respect of the cost of administration of the new arrangements to(a) the hostels and their management committees, (b) local authorities, and (c) Department of Social Security local offices.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department will monitor carefully all aspects of the hostel changes, and will consider any points raised by hostels about administration costs. A grant of £0·5 million has been made available to local authorities to support their costs in taking on the payment of housing benefit to hostel dwellers.

  Offices (Doncaster and Wath-on-Dearne)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by month and by social security office for the current year the number of short fixed-term temporary staff employed in Doncaster and Wath-on-Dearne social security offices, the reasons, and their qualifications.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No fixed-term temporary staff have been employed at either Wath-on-Dearne or Doncaster (East) in the current year. The figures for Doncaster (West) are as follows:
  529

  Number

  1 January

  3

  1 February

  7

  1 March

  7

  1 April

  7

  1 May

  4

  1 June

  4

  1 July

  3

  1 August

  3

  1 September

  2

  1 October

  9

  1 November

  12

  The recruits were offered fixed-term contracts rather than permanent positions in view of the need to reduce staffing levels in 1990 when major computerisation is introduced. Temporary staff on fixed-term contracts are required to have similar qualifications to those employed on a permanent basis.

  Civil Service Transfers
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, upon the creation of agencies providing his Department's operations, all existing Civil Service staff will be transferred to those agencies with at least existing salary scales, promotion prospects and conditions of service.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The staff of agencies will remain civil servants and members of the Department. We have not so far identified the need for any changes in conditions of service: if we do so, any such changes will be introduced only after the appropriate consultation with staff and their representatives.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish a response to the Occupational Pensions Board report on protecting pensions.

  Mr. Newton
  I am grateful to the Occupational Pensions Board for its report. As a result I will be bringing forward legislation at the earliest opportunity to strengthen the benefit security of members of occupational pension schemes and to provide for help for individuals in dealing with pension schemes. These measures reflect both the recommendations of the Occupational Pensions Board and the comments which have been made by right hon. and hon. Members, interested organisations and the public.

  To improve benefit security, I propose four measures. First, we will strengthen the protection for early leavers from occupational pension schemes, which we introduced in 1985, by requiring schemes to revalue all future early leavers' preserved pension rights. Pension rights which go beyond the guaranteed minimum pension will have to be revalued in line with prices, up to a maximum of 5 per cent. a year. Secondly, where a pension scheme winds up, the same revaluation requirement will also apply to future pensions and to pensions in payment. Thirdly, again on wind up, any deficiency in a scheme's assets to meet scheme liabilities, including these new liabilities, will become a debt on the employer. Fourthly, we shall introduce a new ceiling on self-investment for pension
  530
  schemes which will allow them to hold no more than 5 per cent. of their assets in the employer's business; schemes will of course be given time to meet this requirement.

  I also intend to initiate a number of further steps to improve the range of help and advice available to individual pension scheme members. To provide an alternative to the High Court as a means of resolving scheme members' grievances, I propose that there shall be a pensions ombudsman. I propose, too, improved tracing services—based on a register of pension schemes—to help individuals discover which company is responsible for pension rights acquired in previous employment, and I wish to see the activities of the Occupational Pension Advisory Service extended and funded more securely. There will also be amendments to the disclosure regulations to improve information available to scheme members.

  I shall be implementing other OPB recommendations which include better protection and increased choice for members involved in bulk transfers between pensions schemes.

  I shall be seeking the co-operation of the industry in implementing these initiatives. Discussions with the relevant organisations will be set in hand immediately.

  Family Benefits
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) mothers and (b) single-parent fathers are currently receiving child benefit; how many of each are receiving single-parent supplement; and what have been the comparable numbers in each of the past two years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 23 October 1989]: The information is not available in the exact form requested. The following is the estimated number of women and men receiving child benefit and one parent benefit for the latest three years:

  Child benefit

  One parent benefit

  December

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  1986

  6,626,000

  135,000

  544,000

  63,000

  1987

  6,578,000

  134,000

  615,000

  66,000

  1988

  6,572,000

  134,000

  643,000

  64,000

SCOTLAND

  Health Service
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had in the past month concerning Government proposals for changes in the National Health Service relating, in particular, to the impact on the Health Service in Scotland.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had in the past month concerning Government proposals for changes in the National Health Service relating, in particular, to the impact on the Health Service in Scotland.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had in the past month concerning Government proposals for changes in the National Health Service relating, in particular, to the impact on the Health Service in Scotland.
  531
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  During October, my right hon. and learned Friend and I continued consultations with a wide range of interested bodies and individuals. In particular, I met on 23 October the Scottish Committee on Hospital Medical Services. Further discussions have taken place at official level with those who have expressed an interest in the proposals for GP practice budgets and for self-governing trusts.

  Laboratory and Radiodiagnostic Services
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many health boards are currently exploring the possibility of placing out laboratory and radiodiagnostic services to competitive tendering.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  All health boards are examining the services which they provide to ensure that quality is maintained and value for money achieved.

  Lithotriptor Centres
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will compile centrally statistics which show the use by National Health Service patients and private patients of the Scottish lithotriptor centres.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No.

  NATO Exercises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the extent of involvement by his Department in NATO exercise Wintex/Cimex 1987 and exercise Wintex/Cimex 1989; what is the number of staff engaged in the exercise planning process and in the exercises themselves; and what are the posts, ranks and responsibilities of the staff involved.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office plays its part in testing those procedures in which we have an interest. Staff participate as required; it would not be appropriate to supply the detail requested.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates his Department has for the costs of administration in implementing the community charge transitional payment scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that local authorities will be reimbursed for the reasonable costs they incur in administering the new transitional relief scheme. The administration costs will clearly depend upon the nature of the scheme, and we are at present discussing that with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  Monuments (Policy Review)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to reply to the policy review on the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments—England, Wales and Scotland that was undertaken by Peat, Marwick, McClintock; and when he expects to act on the report's recommendations.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The consultants' review was commissioned as part of a policy review of the three 532
  Commissions undertaken jointly by the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Development Department, and CADW (Welsh Historic Monuments). We announced our decisions on the main points of principle raised in the Peat, Marwick, McLintock reports recommendations relating to the Scottish Commission on 22 February at columns 588–89. There remain further points of detail which affect all three Commissions. We aim to conclude this work by the end of the year.

  Mortgage and Rent Arrears
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing levels of rent arrears in public sector housing in Scotland as a whole and in each district and island area on 30 September for each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 31 October 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 26 January 1989 to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) at columns 723–26. Updated information for 1988 is given in the table:

  Rent arrears in Scottish public sector at 30 September 1988

  £

  SCOTLAND

  32,933,736

  Local Authorities

  30,067,921

  Berwickshire1

  54,638

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  40,664

  Roxburgh

  100,708

  Tweeddale

  15,813

  Clackmannan

  800,903

  Falkirk

  667,830

  Stirling

  635,700

  Annandale and Eskdale

  121,708

  Nithsdale

  322,710

  Stewartry

  31,137

  Wigtown

  173,229

  Dunfermline

  669,523

  Kirkcaldy

  698,990

  North East Fife

  117,675

  Aberdeen

  1,144,379

  Banff and Buchan

  277,064

  Gordon

  76,225

  Kincardine and Deeside

  48,878

  Moray

  105,555

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  17,900

  Caithness

  109,666

  Inverness

  n/a

  Lochaber

  53,259

  Nairn

  n/a

  Ross and Cromarty

  268,364

  Skye and Lochalsh

  27,400

  Sutherland

  29,279

  East Lothian

  416,583

  Edinburgh

  1,709,041

  Midlothian

  279,632

  West Lothian

  239,049

  Argyll and Bute

  167,810

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  126,374

  Clydebank

  1,567,976

  Clydesdale

  191,031

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  446,934

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  391,219

  Cunninghame

  304,415

  Dumbarton1

  445,232

  East Kilbride

  40,059

  Eastwood

  38,237

  Glasgow

  10,241,488

  Hamilton

  487,120

  Inverclyde

  318,000

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  214,026

  Kyle and Carrick

  333,026

  Monklands

  958,767

  Motherwell

  1,063,807

  533

  £

  Renfrew

  1,226,984

  Strathkelvin

  459,718

  Angus

  117,843

  Dundee

  1,019,368

  Perth and Kinross

  188,615

  Orkney Islands

  57,583

  Shetland Islands

  111,934

  Western Isles

  296,853

  New Towns

  1,071,975

  Cumbernauld

  201,464

  East Kilbride

  230,889

  Glenrothes

  291,405

  Irvine

  115,910

  Livingston

  232,307

  SSHA

  1,793,840

  n/a Not available.

  1 Figures include rate arrears.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list details of sales of council housing to sitting tenants up to the latest convenient date, by district within regional sub-totals; and what is the percentage of the relevant stock that existed at 30 September 1979 which has been sold to date.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is set out in the following table:

  Total sales from 1 April 1979 to 30 June 1989 as a percentage of stock

  Total sales from 1 April 1979 to 30 June 1989

  1Percentage of stock sold since 1 April 1979

  Local authorities

  123,692

  13·92

  Borders

  3,160

  Berwickshire

  613

  21·40

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1,101

  22·29

  Roxburgh

  1,115

  17·79

  Tweeddale

  331

  20·36

  Central

  9,100

  Clackmannan

  1,496

  15·67

  Falkirk

  5,477

  16·41

  Stirling

  2,177

  16·77

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4,763

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,134

  23·50

  Nithsdale

  1,933

  23·09

  Stewartry

  711

  28·49

  Wigtown

  985

  20·97

  Fife

  12,664

  Dunfermline

  4,809

  20·81

  Kirkcaldy

  5,376

  20·35

  North East Fife

  2,479

  31·58

  Grampian

  11,462

  Aberdeen

  4,400

  11·68

  Banff and Buchan

  2,535

  20·46

  Gordon

  1,367

  22·69

  Kincardine and Deeside

  714

  20·03

  Moray

  2,446

  23·20

  Highland

  4,574

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  331

  31·67

  Caithness

  814

  20·32

  Inverness

  1,275

  18·32

  Lochaber

  717

  21·49

  Nairn

  228

  20·56

  Ross and Cromarty

  773

  12·52

  Skye and Lochalsh

  160

  23·26

  534

  Total sales from 1 April 1979 to 30 June 1989

  1Percentage of stock sold since 1 April 1979

  Sutherland

  276

  16·12

  Lothian

  19,160

  East Lothian

  3,322

  20·49

  Edinburgh

  10,403

  18·36

  Midlothian

  2,780

  21·33

  West Lothian

  2,655

  11·79

  Strathclyde

  47,973

  Argyll and Bute

  1,064

  13·13

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  406

  22·34

  Clydebank

  1,355

  11·54

  Clydesdale

  965

  10·06

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  633

  14·55

  Cumnock and Doon

  Valley

  1,096

  10·64

  Cunninghame

  3,259

  13·85

  Dumbarton

  1,158

  8·83

  East Kilbride

  389

  24·03

  Eastwood

  490

  24·22

  Glasgow

  14,441

  8·24

  Hamilton

  2,760

  12·10

  Inverclyde2

  1,933

  9·66

  Kilmarnock and Loudon

  2,149

  11·77

  Kyle and Carrick

  3,652

  19·97

  Monklands2

  2,025

  7·09

  Motherwell2

  2,796

  7·03

  Renfrew2

  5,363

  13·60

  Strathkelvin

  2,039

  19·17

  Tayside

  9,639

  Angus

  2,664

  18·29

  Dundee

  3,619

  9·08

  Perth and Kinross

  3,356

  20·59

  Orkney Islands

  326

  23·04

  Shetland Islands

  359

  15·84

  Western Isles

  512

  23·14

  1 Expressed as a percentage of stock as at 30 September 1978.

  2 Figures not available for quarter 2 1989.

  Public Rights of Way
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to give himself power to call a public inquiry into the actions of a local authority where a public right of way has been altered, closed or changed in any way.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 November 1989]: There are sufficient powers, under current legislation, to allow for public inquiries where appropriate.

WALES

  Health Service (Expenditure)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage of the gross domestic product per head for Wales spent on the National Health Service calculated on the Welsh gross domestic product.

  Mr. Grist
  In 1987–88 gross expenditure on the National Health Service in Wales was £1,136·5 million, which is equivalent to 8 per cent. of the provisional 1987 figure for Welsh GDP of £14,156 million.

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children are attending nursery schools in each Welsh county; and what proportion they are of the under-five child population.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information as at January 1989 is as follows:

  Number of pupils

  Pupils as percentage of under-five population

  Clwyd

  326

  1·3

  Dyfed

  207

  1·0

  Gwent

  1,130

  3·8

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,228

  3·3

  Powys

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  803

  2·8

  West Glamorgan

  227

  1·0

  This information relates solely to children in nursery schools. There is a total of 50,202 children under five in primary/nursery schools, of which 23,613 are in nursery classes, 69 per cent. and 32·5 per cent. respectively of the under-five population.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the numbers of children attending local authority nursery schools in Newport, Gwent; and what proportion they are of the under-five child population.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  In January 1989, 415 children attended maintained nursery schools in Newport, Gwent representing 4·4 per cent. of the under-five population. Some under-fives also attend nursery classes in primary schools but no figures are available.

  Cadw
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the total per head of the population of Wales that was spent by Cadw in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Year

  Total expenditure £'000

  Estimated population1'000

  Estimated expenditure per head of population £

  1986–87

  4,173

  2,821

  1·48

  1987–88

  5,806

  2,836

  2·05

  1988–89

  5,251

  2,857

  1·84

  1 The population figures are based on estimates calculated on the 30 June for each year.

  Rescue Archaeology
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to increase the funds available for rescue archaeology in the wetlands of Gwent.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Funding for rescue archaeology is determined on an annual basis in consultation with the four archaeological trusts in Wales. The Department has specifically made available additional resources in respect of the recently discovered wetland site in Caldicot country 536
  park. To date our commitment to that particular site exceeds £40,000 and its future is the subject of discussions between the Department and the local authorities which own the site.

  Schools (Local Management)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment his Department has made of the cost of implementation of local management of schools in Wales and its year-on-year cost after implementation.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  We have announced proposals for specific grant support for expenditure of over £6 million over the period 1989–90 to 1991–92 for the introduction of local management, the training of governors, and LEA inspection.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment his Department has made of the training required by(a) head teachers and (b) school governors for the implementation and running of local management of schools in Wales and the cost for each during implementation and year on year.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Local education authorities have a duty to provide training for school governors and head teachers. We have made available £582,000 in 1989–90 for management training and appraisal for head teachers as a national priority under the LEA training grants scheme. In 1990–91 £470,000 will be available for management training alone. Expenditure of up to £400,000 is also available this year through education support grant for governor training and Government support will be at a comparable level in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  NHS Treatment Centres
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when, pursuant to his answer of 30 October to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, he will be in a position to provide details on the operation of treatment centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The discussions between the Welsh Office and managers and clinicians in the NHS, to which I referred in my answer of 30 October, are at an advanced stage. Subject to their satisfactory conclusion my right hon. Friend would hope to write to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

  Ancient Monuments Commission
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to reply to the policy review of the Royal Commission on ancient and historical monuments—England, Wales and Scotland undertaken by Peat, Marwick, McClintock; and when he expects to act on the report's recommendations.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The consultants' review was commissioned as part of a policy review of the three Royal Commissions undertaken jointly by the Department of the Environment, Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments, and the Scottish Development Department. Decisions relating to the Welsh Commission on the main points of principle raised in the KPMG report were announced on 20 February 1989. There remain further points of detail which affect all three commissions. These are under active
  537
  consideration and are the subject of discussion with the commission in Wales. We aim to conclude this further work by the end of the year.

EMPLOYMENT

  Part-time Workers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation which establishes a minimum wage for part-time employees.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. A national minimum wage would raise employers' costs and destroy jobs.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation which guarantees equal opportunities for part-time workers in the areas of training and promotion.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. These are matters which are best determined by employers and their employees taking into account local conditions and the needs of both the work force and the business. Government legislation on these issues is neither necessary nor appropriate.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation which guarantees equal rights for part-time workers, including pay, maternity leave, a sick pay scheme and a revised pension plan.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. Pay and conditions are matters to be negotiated between employers and employees to suit their individual circumstances. The 1·4 million growth in part-time employment in Great Britain since 1983 shows its popularity with employers and employees alike.

  Assaults on Staff
  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many assaults on members of employment service staff were reported in(a) 1988 and (b) the first nine months of 1989.

  Mr. Eggar
  In 1988 the number of reported physical assaults on employment service staff was 65. There were also 212 reported incidents of threatening behaviour or verbal abuse. The figures for the first nine months of 1989 are 107 and 711 respectively. A direct comparison of the two periods is misleading since in September 1988 the reporting system was improved and the definition of an assault was broadened.

  Staff Shortages
  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployment benefit offices and jobcentres have been closed during normal opening hours because of staff shortages during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service does not keep detailed records of short-term closures during normal opening hours by its 2,000 offices.

  Employment service managers have the authority to vary opening arrangements in the event of serious staff absences. Typically these absences impact most heavily on small offices with managers responding by closing at lunch time or in the case of part-time offices reducing the number of days they are open.
  538
  Currently some 20 offices are closed or are providing much reduced services because of industrial action by some staff. I deplore the industrial action, but I am grateful for the efforts being made by other staff members to avoid hardship to unemployed people and to ensure that benefits are paid on time.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the present number of(a) men and (b) women who were unemployed in the Greater London area on 1 November.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The following information is available in the Library. On 14 September 1989, the latest available date, there were, seasonally adjusted, 149,000 male and 57,200 female unemployed claimants in the Greater London region.

  Engineering (Training)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to be in a position to make a statement about future arrangements for training in the engineering industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Consultations with the engineering industry training board and organisations representing employers in the engineering industry have now been completed. My right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether, in making arrangements for the future of training in engineering, he will ensure that existing provision by EITB for the training of women engineers, for adult training in modern technology skills and for the promotion in schools of engineering as a career, is safeguarded and will be continued by the successor body.

  Mr. Nicholls
  While the Government recognise the value of these EITB services, they believe that it is for industry to decide whether a voluntary successor body should continue to provide particular services currently run by the industrial training board.

  Disabled People (Quotas)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many members of the staff of his Department are engaged on ensuring that the Disabled Persons Employment Act 1944 in respect of the quota system for disabled people is implemented.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: All jobcentre staff involved in filling vacancies have some responsibility to help to ensure that the quota system is implemented. The main responsibility falls on disablement resettlement officers and the disablement advisory service. During the quarter ending 7 July 1989 664 staff were engaged in these services specifically for people with disabilities.

  Claimants
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have transferred from unemployment benefit to(a) sickness benefit, and (b) other benefits in each month since January 1987.
  539
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information is not collected in the form requested. An estimate of the number of spells of sickness and invalidity benefit which linked with a claim to unemployment benefit made in the previous eight weeks is shown in the table for each month from January 1987 to March 1988, the latest month for which statistics are available. Information is not available for other benefits.

  Spells of SB/IVB linking with unemployment

  Month commencing

  Number

  5 January 1987

  19,000

  4 February 1987

  21,000

  6 March 1987

  20,000

  6 April 1987

  16,000

  6 May 1987

  19,000

  5 June 1987

  19,000

  6 July 1987

  20,000

  5 August 1987

  21,000

  4 September 1987

  22,000

  5 October 1987

  25,000

  4 November 1987

  19,000

  4 December 1987

  14,000

  4 January 1988

  22,000

  3 February 1988

  21,000

  4 March 1988

  18,000

DEFENCE

  Fylingdales
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications of the 1972 ABM treaty for the continued operation of Fylingdales early warning station.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom is not a party to the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and we therefore have no locus to interpret it. We are, however, satisfied that the modernisation programme for the Fylingdales ballistic missile early warning system fully conforms with the obligations of the United States under the treaty.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what installations the Soviet Union has which serve a similar purpose to the Fylingdales early warning station.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Soviet Union completed the deployment in the mid-1970s of a system of ballistic missile early warning radars at six locations around the periphery of the USSR. A further network of more modern, and technically advanced, early warning radars are being deployed at eight locations around the periphery of the USSR. The Soviet Union has recently accepted that a ninth station, at Krasnoyarsk, represents a violation of the 1972 ABM treaty and has announced its decision to dismantle it.

  Service Widows
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now bring the pensions of pre-1973 service widows into line with those paid to those widowed since 1973; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Under the rules of the armed forces pension scheme the payment of pensions to the widows of servicemen depends upon the terms and conditions in force at the date on which their husbands 540
  completed their service, or died in service. The rules of the scheme were changed in 1973 and these changes applied only to personnel giving service on or after 31 March 1973. In accordance with normal principles and practice for occupational pension schemes, the revised rules did not apply retrospectively to include former members of the scheme, and there are no plans to do so now.

  Loan Service Personnel
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many loan service personnel are currently deployed in Belize;

  (2) how many loan service personnel are currently deployed in Thailand;

  (3) if he will publish in the Official Report the names of all the countries which have had access to training by members of Her Majesty's armed forces serving overseas on secondment or loan during each of the last four years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  British service personnel served on loan or secondment in each year from 1986–89 in the following countries:

  Australia

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belize

  Bermuda

  Brunei

  Dominica

  Fiji

  Gambia

  Ghana

  Hong Kong

  Indonesia

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Kuwait

  Lesotho

  Mauritius

  New Zealand

  Nigeria

  Oman

  Qatar

  Saudi Arabia

  St. Lucia

  St. Vincent

  Sudan

  Swaziland

  United Arab Emirate

  Zimbabwe1

  1Since January 1986 a wing of the British military advisory and training team has been specifically allocated to train Mozambican troops in Zimbabwe.

  In addition British service personnel served on loan or secondment in the following countries in the years shown:

  Year

  Botswana

  1988 and 1989

  Chile

  1986

  Grenada

  1989

  Malaysia

  1988 and 1989

  Singapore

  1988

  Turks and Caicos

  1988 and 1989

  Uganda

  1986 and 1987

  There are currently 12 United Kingdom loan service personnel deployed in Belize, a reduction from the figure of 14 which was published in the Eighth Report of the House of Commons Defence Committee (HC 624, Session 1987–88).

  There are no loan service personnel currently deployed in Thailand.
  541
  Specific details about personnel serving on loan or secondment are generally in confidence between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the country concerned.

  Cambodian Troops
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether British troops have provided military training to the Khmer People's National Liberation Armed Forces or the National Sihanoukist Army.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the practice to comment on allegations of this nature.

  Frigates
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many frigates need to be ordered between now and 1994 in order to maintain an average annual ordering rate of 2·6 surface escorts per year.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 2 November 1989]: Thirteen would be needed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Ladies Toilets
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what steps he intends to take to ensure an adequate supply of hand towels are available in all the ladies toilets in the House of Commons.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Authorities of the House make every effort to ensure that an adequate supply of hand towels is maintained in those lavatories set aside for the use

  HDC Poll

  Response to question: are you in favour of retaining the HDC for a further five years?

  In favour

  Against

  Spoiled forms

  Forms not returned

  Total registered October 1989

  Percentage of the voting who were in favour

  Number of growers

  1,103

  994

  158

  1,157

  3,412

  52·6

  Percentage

  (32·3)

  (29·1)

  (4·6)

  (33·9)

  —

  —

  £

  £

  £

  In value of levy terms

  459,578

  259,642

  299,154

  —

  63·9

  Percentage

  (45·2)

  (25·5)

  (29·4)

  —

  —

  Note— Poll figures rounded to 1 decimal point

  Sector

  In terms of grower numbers Per cent.

  In terms of levy value Per cent.

  For

  Against

  For

  Against

  Field Vegetables

  51·4

  48·6

  61·1

  38·9

  Protected Crops

  48·4

  51·6

  62·7

  37·4

  Hardy Nursery Stock

  52·6

  47·4

  71·8

  28·2

  Soft Fruit

  72·8

  27·2

  78·8

  21·2

  Bulbs and Outdoor Flowers

  44·1

  55·9

  40·9

  59·1

  Note— Poll figures rounded to 1 decimal point

  Poll of mushroom growers

  Response to question: are you in favour of joining the HDC?

  In favour

  Against

  Spoiled forms

  Forms not returned

  Total poll

  Percentage of the voting who were in favour

  Number of growers

  88

  22

  —

  253

  363

  80·0

  Percentage

  (24·2)

  (6·1)

  —

  (69·7)

  —

  —

  542
  of lady Members. Any difficulties over the adequacy of supplies should in the first instance be referred to the Serjeant at Arms.

  Hon. Members (Medical Screening)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the annual payment to West Lambeth health authority by the House of Commons for medical screening for hon. Members; how many have used this facility; and what is the cost per patient.

  Mr. Beith
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: During the years 1986–88, 353 Members received medical screening at a total cost of £35,130·18 (an average of £99·52 per Member). In addition, a separate charge is levied for any set of X-rays provided as part of the screening process. During 1988, 17 such X-rays were suppled at a total cost of £510. The unit cost for this service has recently been increased to £40. Payment for the screening exercise is made direct to the united medical and dental school of Guy's and St. Thomas's hospitals and payment for X-rays to St. Thomas's hospital, which provides that service.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Poll Results
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has received the results of the Horticultural Development Council poll and the poll of mushroom growers.

  Mr Gummer
  Yes. The results of the polls are as follows:
  543

  In favour

  Against

  Spoiled forms

  Forms not returned

  Total poll

  Percentage of the voting who were in favour

  Litres of spawn purchased 1988

  2,437,214

  531,118

  —

  709,871

  —

  82·1

  Percentage

  (66·3)

  (14·4)

  —

  (19·3)

  —

  —

  Note—Poll figures rounded to 1 decimal point

  The result of the poll is in favour of continuing the HDC, and all organisations representing producers and workers employed in the industry are also in favour. The Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and I have therefore decided to confirm the decision originally announced on 10 July 1989 in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). Arrangements will also be made to bring mushrooms within the scope of the operations of the council. This decision is subject to the approval of Parliament.

  NATO Exercises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the extent of involvement by his Department in NATO Exercise Wintex/Cimex 1987 and Exercise Wintex/Cimex 1989; what is the number of staff engaged in the exercise planning process and in the exercises themselves; and what are the posts, ranks and responsibilities of the staff involved.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department plays its part in testing those procedures in which we have an interest. Staff participate as required; it would not be appropriate for me to supply the detail requested.

  Mobile Bakeries
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how his Department plans to make mobile bakeries available to local authorities after nuclear attack;

  (2) what is the current annual cost of storage and maintenance for the stock of mobile bakeries held by his Department; and what are the expected changes to these costs following the current refurbishment programme;

  (3) what is the estimated cost of replacing the mobile bakery units held by his Department;

  (4) what the estimated total cost will be for refurbishing the mobile bakery units held by his Department for use in a time of crisis;

  (5) when the refurbishment of the stock of mobile bakeries held by his Department will be complete;

  (6) where the mobile bakeries held by his Department for use in time of crisis are stored.

  Mr. Maclean
  The refurbishment of mobile bakery units to ensure that they fully meet modern health and safety operational requirements is due to be completed early in 1990 at a total cost of £ 1,170,092. The current cost of replacing this equipment would be approximately £2·5 million.

  The mobile bakeries are a part of the stockpile of food and emergency feeding equipment. Expenditure on these activities is set out in class IV vote 4 of the 1989–90 Supply Estimates. It is not possible to identify separately the costs specifically relating to the storage and maintenance in store of the bakery equipment but they are not expected to change significantly as a result of the refurbishment programme.
  544
  Bakery equipment is held in each home defence region and would be deployed to augment local emergency baking facilities as instructed by the regional government food and agriculture officer.

  Horses and Ponies (Exports)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to maintain minimum values below which the export of horses and ponies is forbidden after 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The system of minimum values designed to prevent the export of horses for slaughter is a purely national arrangement. As part of the single market programme the Commission has made a proposal for a community regulation on the protection of animals during transport and as drafted this makes no provision for our controls on horse exports to continue. Whilst I can hold out no hope that other member states will be persuaded to apply the minimum value arrangements throughout the Community, our objective will be to ensure that there will be adequate welfare standards during all journeys and that these are implemented and enforced rigorously throughout the Community to protect horses and ponies.

  Zoonoses Order 1989
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will revoke the Zoonoses order 1989 as it applies to poultry.

  Mr. Maclean
  No.

  Catering Industry
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which sections of the catering industry are within his ministerial resonsibility.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department is concerned with all aspects of the food chain of which the catering industry is an integral part.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his Department is doing to research the problem of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department is currently funding an extensive programme of research into bovine spongiform encephalopathy, including studies into the epidemiology of the disease, transmission to offspring of affected animals and to other species, molecular biological and genetic aspects, clinico-pathology and embryo transfer. The cost of the programme this year is estimated to be over £2 million. There is also international collaboration and discussion with colleagues in the EC, the United States of America and with the Organisation Internationale des Epizooties.
  545
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if all animal parts susceptible to bovine spongiform encephalopathy are being banned from use in food production;

  (2) if animal foodstuffs are thoroughly checked for bovine spongiform encephalopathy;

  (3) what measures are being taken to diagnose bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle.

  Mr. Maclean
  All suspected cases of BSE are being slaughtered and destroyed so that they cannot enter the food chain. It is also the Government's intention, as an ultra-precautionary measure, to ban from human consumption certain bovine offals which might be capable of harbouring the BSE agent in case any animals with pre-clinical disease are still being slaughtered for human consumption. There is no test available for the presence of BSE in live animals or products derived from them.

  Animal Foodstuffs
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if animal foodstuffs are imported from countries where there are no restrictions on the use of diseased carcases in animal feed.

  Mr. Maclean
  Whether or not exporting countries place restrictions on the use of diseased carcases in animal feeding stuffs, our import conditions require, among other things, that animal-based proteins intended for use as animal feeding stuffs undergo pre-export heat treatment. This has to be confirmed by their veterinary authorities and provides the necessary safeguards against the introduction of animal diseases.

  Plant Health Inspectors
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many plant health inspectors he has employed in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The number of plant health inspectors employed by my Department in each of the last 10 years was as follows:

  Number

  1979

  69

  1980

  70

  1981

  76

  1982

  85

  1983

  79

  1984

  85

  1985

  83

  1986

  83

  1987

  77

  Water Authority Sewage
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the practice of farmers spreading sewage supplied by water authorities on their land; what regulating controls there are; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The use of sewage sludge in agriculture is controlled by the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989 which were made, as respects England, by my right 546
  hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and which are complemented by a code of practice. The regulations, which implement EC directive 86/278/EEC, specify the requirements to be observed before and after use including analysis of the sludge and soil. So far this year my Department has received six letters on this question, mostly concerning the need to minimise any public health risk.

  Animal Products
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on the introduction of a fourth criterion in addition to those of quality, safety and efficacy with regard to animal products tested under the Medicines Act 1968.

  Mr. Maclean
  The purpose of the licensing under the Medicines Act is to protect public and animal health and I do not believe that socio-economic or other additional criteria contribute to this purpose.

PRIME MINISTER

  South Africa
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has made to the state President of South Africa.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have made representations to President de Klerk on a number of issues and is encouraged by President de Klerk's recent moves: the release of Mr. Sisulu and others is a major step in the right direction and we urge President de Klerk to continue on the path towards negotiations.

  Unemployment
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on progress in reducing unemployment.

  The Prime Minister
  In September 1989 the number of unemployed claimants, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom was 1,695,000. Unemployment has been falling for 38 consecutive months. It is now at its lowest level for nearly nine years, and well below the European Community average.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will transfer responsibility for the magistracy from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The allocation of functions between Ministers and Departments is kept under regular review. There are currently no plans to transfer the Home Office's responsibilities for the magistrates courts to the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  European Currency Exchanges
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the degree of progress made by member states in achieving freedom of currency exchanges; and if she will make a statement.
  547
  The Prime Minister
  The timetable for the removal of restrictions on movements of capital by member states is set down in a Council directive of 24 June 1988 and was endorsed by the European Council in Hanover in June 1988. Removal of these restrictions is essential to the completion of the single market and it is in the interests of all member states that the timetable is met.

  Homelessness
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will visit the Bondway emergency night shelter in Vauxhall and participate in the nightly soup run for the homeless on the South Bank.

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

  Mr. Charles Powell
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister for how long she now expects Mr. Charles Powell to remain as principal private secretary in her office.

  The Prime Minister
  Mr. Powell serves as my private secretary for foreign affairs and will serve in my office until it is time for him to leave.

  Visits
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next plans to visit Wales.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit by train.

  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will visit Lancaster.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Towcester.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will visit Lancashire.

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

  Civil Service (Scotland)
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps she has taken to ensure adherence by Scottish Office civil servants to the rules covering their communicating with political parties; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  All staff in the Scottish Office are aware that civil servants must be impartial as between political parties. Very recently, as part of a routine updating of standing instructions, staff in the Scottish Office have been reminded of the importance of maintaining the principle of impartiality.

  Inner Cities
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on progress with the Government's inner cities strategy.

  The Prime Minister
  Excellent progress continues to be made in the regeneration of our inner cities under the Government's action for cities programme, spending on 548
  which is planned to increase from £3 billion in 1988–89 to about £3·5 billion this year. Unemployment in the 57 inner-city target areas has fallen by 23 per cent. over the past year.

  Insider Trading
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the content of recent statements made by her press office in relation to Ministers and insider trading.

  The Prime Minister
  My press office made it clear that they had no knowledge of the story put out by The Scotsman and were therefore not in a position to comment.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall he having further meetings later today; then I shall depart for the United States of America to address the United Nations General Assembly.

  Cambodia (SAS)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she has given her authority for the deployment of members of the Special Air Services to train troops in Cambodia.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: It has been the practice of successive Governments never to discuss the activities of the special forces.

HEALTH

  North-Western Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the level of funding to the North Western regional health authority.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Funding for the North Western regional health authority for 1989–90 is £1,238.710,000. This is an all-time record, representing a real terms increase of 33 per cent. over 1978–79, compared with 30 per cent. for England as a whole. Revenue and capital allocations for 1990–91 will be notified to all regional health authorities after the Autumn Statement.

  NHS Reorganisation (Liverpool)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the proposed re-organisation of the National Health Service in Liverpool.
  549
  Mr. Freeman
  If the hon. Member is referring to the review of how to improve the pattern of acute services in Liverpool, this was commissioned by the Mersey regional health authority. The region has asked districts to take the suggestions of the review into account in its own long term planning. Any major service change is, of course, subject to the normal consultative process.

  NHS Reform
  16. Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many other groups of doctors, in addition to Sarum '89 he has met to discuss his proposals for reform of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  My colleagues and I have had very many meetings with representative bodies of the medical profession, with other groups and with individual doctors.

  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received in association with the proposed Health Service reforms with regard to general practitioners' prescribing budgets.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received 706 representations specifically referring to the proposals on prescribing budgets. In addition to this we have received 12,213 representations about the White Paper proposals in general, many of which have raised questions about, among other things, indicative prescribing budgets. Many of the letters expressed concern about the continued availability of medicines under the new system. We have been able to reassure correspondents that, as the representatives of the profession have now accepted, general practitioners will be able to continue to prescribe all those medicines which individual patients might need.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to meet representatives of the British Medical Association to discuss changes in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The BMA and my Department have not yet fixed a date for my next meeting with representatives of the BMA. I have no doubt that we will continue to have constructive discussions on how best to implement the proposals in the White Paper "Working For Patients".

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to restate the overriding duty of a general practitioner to consider only the best interests of his or her patient when considering what drugs or medication to prescribe in forthcoming legislation affecting the National Health Service

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government have always made it clear that their proposals for reforming the NHS would not in any way prevent people getting the medicines that they need. The representatives of the medical profession accepted on 28 September that the management arrangements proposed by the Government for indicative prescribing budgets would not infringe in any way the right of a general practitioner to prescribe all those medicines which individual patients might need.

  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the proposals to allow district health authorities to purchase health care from hospitals will affect patient care.
  550
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  These proposals will result in better standards of health care and more choice for patients. They will enable district health authorities to use their resources to obtain the best value for money in terms of high quality consumer-responsive services for their population. Districts will have a clear responsibility to ensure that a full range of health care services is available. They will specify the services required from each hospital or unit, whether or not it is under their direct managerial control. They will also specify the quality standards expected and ensure that these are met. Districts will be able to improve services as they will be financed on a basis which enables them to use any units which meets their requirements. They will use this freedom, in close consultation with local GPs, to obtain the most appropriate pattern of services for their population and to offer the maximum possible choice to patients.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether general practitioners' ability to refer patients for treatment will be affected by the proposed reform of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the implications of the proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients" for general practitioners' freedom to refer patients for treatment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer given to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 23 October at column 318.

  Self-governing Hospitals
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that patients are aware that the proposed self-governing hospitals will not be opting-out of the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government have made it quite clear, in published documents on the NHS review proposals, and in statements to the House and in public, that NHS trusts will remain firmly within the NHS. We shall continue to take every opportunity to explain our proposals and to dispel any misconceptions.

  The Chief Executive of the NHS Management Executive has recently announced (18 October) a new initiative to improve communications and stimulate a better understanding of the Government's proposals amongst NHS staff. This will help to ensure that the people who have direct contact with patients have the necessary information to explain the implications of the NHS review proposals to them.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which services will have to be retained by National Health Service self-governing hospitals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It will be for district health authorities to determine, in the light of local circumstances, what services are required to meet the health care needs of their resident popultion and to secure provision of those services through contracts. As part of this process, health authorities will identify those services which must be provided locally. Where a unit which applies for NHS trust status is the only sensible option for providing such services my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will approve arrangements for their continued
  551
  provision on establishment of the NHS trust. Any later changes will be subject to my right hon. and learned Friend's further approval if they cannot be agreed locally.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many National Health Service hospitals have now indicated their interest in self-governance.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have received 186 expressions of interest in NHS trust status. Some are for non-hospital facilities and others include more than one hospital.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress towards establishing self-governing hospitals he expects to achieve by 1992.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) on 3 November.

  Apart from the units which are preparing applications for NHS trust status in 1991, others will prepare applications to become trusts later. I expect to receive applications in about 18 months time from hospitals and units wishing to become self-governing NHS trusts from April 1992.

  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken to develop the necessary commissioning expertise within district health authorities so that they will be in a position to purchase services from self-governing hospital trusts from April 1991; and whether his Department has any plans to revise this implementation date.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  On 2 November, Duncan Nichol, the chief executive of the NHS management executive announced a major programme of work to support DHAs in adopting their new role. The project will draw on the results of local initiatives in 11 districts and ensure that the lessons learned are shared quickly across the service. We have no plans to change the timetable for implementing the White Paper reforms.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many requests for information he has received from hospitals interested in acquiring self-governing status.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A total of 186 expressions of interest in acquiring NHS trust status have been received. Some of these are for non-hospital facilities and others include more than one hospital.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which managers of hospitals for mentally handicapped people have expressed an interest in opting out under the arrangements outlined in the Government White Paper.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Eleven units for mentally handicapped people have expressed interest in NHS trust status. A number of other expressions of interest in NHS trust status, for whole district services and for community services, also include units for mentally handicapped patients. There is, of course, no question of any hospital "opting-out" of the NHS.

  Mr. Graham Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the result of the recent ballot of staff of Queen's medical centre on opting-out.
  552
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I understand that a ballot relating to the expression of interest in NHS trust status from the University hospital in Nottingham was held at the request of Nottingham Trades Council, the results of which are a matter for the trades council. There is. of course, no question of any hospital "opting-out" of the NHS.

  Cottage Hospitals
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on the promotion and support of cottage hospitals under the proposed new funding arrangements for the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Small hospitals can have a valuable role to play in providing a range of services if that is what is needed locally. Under our proposals district health authorities will have responsibiity for ensuring provision of a comprehensive range of services for their resident population. They will be able to take full account of services offered by cottage hospitals in deciding where to place contracts.

  Practice Budgets
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has received any expressions of interest from general practitioners' practices about operating their own practice budgets, as proposed in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Although we have not yet asked GPs to indicate formally their interest in being directly funded as practice budget holders, the level of interest shown by eligible practices has been encouraging.

  National Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the gross domestic product was spent on the National Health Service in the most recent year for which figures are available, and what was the percentage in 1978.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In 1988, 5·2 per cent. of the United Kingdom's gross domestic product was spent on the National Health Service compared with 4·9 per cent. in 1978.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department expects to spend on the National Health Service in 1990–91.

  Mr. Freeman
  Planned expenditure for 1990–91 for the National Health Service in England currently stands at £22·1 billion. At this time of the year we are awaiting the Chancellor's Autumn Statement; I cannot, of course, anticipate its contents.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total increase or decrease in real terms, taking inflation into account, in Health Service spending in England and Wales over the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  In the past 10 years, since 1979–80, gross expenditure on the National Health Service in England and Wales has increased by 38 per cent. in real terms. Over the period since 1978–79 real terms expenditure has increased by 40 per cent.

  East Anglia Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the chairman of the East Anglia regional health authority, and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last met the chairman on 20 September at one of the bi-monthly meetings with regional health authority chairmen. He discussed various matters of common interest.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional funding he anticipates will come to the East Anglia regional health authority as a result of the new allocation formula announced in the White Paper.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Actual allocations for 1990–91 have yet to be decided and are dependent on the outcome of this year's public expenditure survey. Under the new formula, which will be more sensitive to population growth, East Anglia's share of the resources available nationally will increase and continue to increase as the region's share of population increases.

  Pendle Community Hospital
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of the Pendle community hospital.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Pendle community hospital is a £6 million development in community hospital care which will open in September 1991. It will provide 24 beds which general practitioners can use for treating patients suffering from a range of medical conditions not requiring the full services available at the district general hospital. In addition to this, so that day cases will benefit from ready access to physiotherapy and occupational therapy, an acute outpatients department will have extensive clinical facilities in medical, surgical and paediatric services. There will also be 45 beds for the elderly who need medical treatment and rehabilitation care.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he plans to increase the participation of disabled people in the planning of their own community care services.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about his plans for ensuring that disabled people are fully consulted when their community care needs are assessed.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he plans to promote choice for the individual disabled person or carer in the new arrangements for community care services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Member to the statement which my right hon. and learned Friend made to the House on 12 July announcing our main proposals for the future organisation of community care. In that statement my right hon. and learned Friend outlined arrangements designed to widen choice to individuals in need of community care and 554
  provide more appropriate services closer to their wishes and needs. Our forthcoming White Paper will set out in detail how we intend to achieve these aims.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase and encourage advocacy opportunities for disabled people with regard to community care provision.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he plans to put support for the principle of advocacy into practice in future arrangements for community care services.

  Mr. Freeman
  I assume that the right hon. and hon. Members have in mind the provisions of sections 1 and 2 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which deal with the appointment and rights of authorised representatives of disabled persons in connection with local authority welfare services. We have already implemented six key sections of this Act, but we have always made it clear that further implementation would depend on the availability of the necessary resources. With section 1 there is the additional complication that implementation would require detailed procedures to be set out in regulations. We hope to begin consultations soon with the local authority associations about the costs of implementing these sections, together with section 3, and with those associations and other interested bodies about the appointment procedures which would be set out in regulations under section 1.

  Post-abortion Syndrome
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the 1976 study of post-abortion syndrome, commissioned from the Royal College of General Practitioners, will be published.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is a major United Kingdom study of the short and long-term sequelae of abortion. Since it began in 1976 papers have been published covering induced abortions and their early sequelae; the outcome of pregnancy following induced abortion; and the sequelae of induced abortion. I understand that completion of the analysis of the large amount of data collected by the researchers is taking much longer than expected. They hope to be in a position to produce a final report in the middle of next year.

  Health Authority Chairmen
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department will draw up a code of conduct to ensure that the private business interests of chairmen of health authorities are kept clearly separate from their public responsibilities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The statutory position is already quite clear. Under regulation 14(1) of the National Health Service (Regional and District Health Authorities: Membership and Procedure) Regulations (SI 1983 No. 315) a chairman of a health authority is required to declare any pecuniary interest, direct or otherwise, in any contract or other matter which is the subject of consideration by the health authority. He may not then take part in any consideration or discussion of the contract (or matter) or vote on any question in respect of it.

  Kidney Unit, Leicester
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make available additional resources to the Leicestershire health authority to enable it to fully open the kidney unit at the general hospital.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand Trent regional health authority has agreed with Leicestershire health authority to open three new beds in the renal unit at Leicester general hospital at a cost of £90,000 per annum. The beds are available now and I understand the health authority plans to have the necessary staff in post by 20 November. The health authorities hope to open a further three beds next year, bringing the unit to its full complement a year earlier than originally planned.

  NHS (Accountancy and Auditing)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the accountancy and auditing systems operating within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  The statutory auditors regularly review the effectiveness of the well-documented accountancy and audit arrangements in the NHS, and the annual report of the director of NHS audit sets out their findings. For 1987–88, the auditors found material errors leading to qualification of their certificate in respect of five health authorities of the 334 audited; the audits of the 1988–89 accounts have not yet all been finalised.

  Dentists
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he anticipates there being any increase in demand for dentists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No. Dental health is steadily improving in this country and the nature of dental services is changing. Dental manpower reviews undertaken in 1983 and 1987 in conjunction with the profession recommended reductions in the overall undergraduate intake to United Kingdom dental schools in order to slow down the rate of increase in the numbers of dentists. The next review of dental manpower will take place next year and will report during 1991.

  General Practitioner Contract
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further discussions he proposes with the British Medical Association before he implements the new general practitioner contract.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have no plans for further discussions with the British Medical Association on the subject of the GPs' new contract before that contract is introduced. My officials are still consulting them on technical and drafting details of the new statement of fees and allowances.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the allocation of travelling time for general practitioners in rural areas under the new contract obligation of 26 hours patient contact time.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is accepted that the 26-hour requirement in the revised terms of service for general 556
  practitioners includes travelling time when GPs make home visits. There is no specific element within the 26 hours which is allocated to travelling time because GPs in some rural areas will need more travelling time for home visits than those in urban areas.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a progress report on the implementation of the general practitioners' new contract.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The NHS (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1989 were laid on 16 October and certain parts come into operation today. The revised statement of fees and allowances will be sent to all GPs later this month with a copy of their revised terms of service. FPCs will shortly receive a circular of guidance on the management of the GP's new contract. These arrangements will enable GPs and FPCs to make detailed plans for the full implementation of the new contract from 1 April next year.

  "Working for Patients"
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has recently received concerning the effect on women of the proposals contained in the White Paper "Working for Patients"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received a small number of representations. Our proposals will benefit women, as all patients, by bringing all parts of the NHS closer to the standards already achieved by the best.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how patients will be affected by the proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients."

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The point of all our proposals is to produce a better NHS providing the type and standard of service a patient has a right to expect throughout the country. Hospitals will have more freedom to manage their own affairs and so will be able to respond better and quicker to individual patients and their GPs. District health authorities for their part will in future be able to concentrate on identifying the health needs of the populations they serve and then making sure that they receive a comprehensive range of high quality services. They will be able to use contracts to specify the quality of services to be provided. Extra funding will go directly to hospitals which can best provide the services needed. This means that the hospitals to which most patients want to go will be funded accordingly.

  Clinical audit will make sure that there is systematic quality control of treatments throughout the Health Service with, for the first time, all doctors looking critically at what they and their colleagues are doing so that they can improve their effectiveness and outcomes. Patients will have shorter waiting times and better appointment systems; 100 more consultants will be appointed in addition to the existing year-by-year growth in numbers. The new GP contract will result in improved services and some large GP practices will be able to seek to make more effective use of NHS funds for their patients.

  The effect of all these, and the other proposals in the White Paper, will be to make the NHS more consumer conscious and better able to provide a high quality service.
  557
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make a statement on his discussions with the British Medical Association regarding the White Paper "Working for Patients."

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I had a useful meeting with the British Medical Association on 18 October. We both took away ideas for further consideration. I am always ready to enter into constructive discussions with the BMA about how best to implement the proposals in the White Paper.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to ensure that the proposals in the National Health Service White Paper will not mean that patients will be compelled to travel long distances for treatment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No patient will be made to travel long distances for treatment against their will. Surveys have shown that a majority of patients are willing to travel to get earlier or better treatment. When doctors refer patients to hospital they will take the circumstances and wishes of patients fully into account.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will outline further improvements that patients can expect to result from the implementation of the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are a number of detailed proposals in the White Paper, "Working for Patients", which will lead to substantial improvement for patients when implemented. These include ensuring that patients are given reliable appointment times, better waiting and counselling facilities, much fuller information about the services available and about their own care and quicker notification of diagnostic test results. We are asking everyone working in the Health Service to recognise the importance of the individual patient. In future it will be easier to choose and, if necessary, change GP.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations he proposes to have with the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the National Union of Public Employees and the National and Local Government Officers Association concerning the Government's White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My fellow Ministers and I have had several meetings with representatives of all the trade unions mentioned about how best to implement the reforms set out in the White Paper.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress towards implementing the proposals in the National Health Service White Paper.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We are making good progress in putting into action the changes outlined in the White Paper "Working for Patients". I am confident that the NHS will be ready to implement the basic elements of the new and better systems of matching growth and resources with expansion of patient services by April 1991 if Parliament approves the necessary legislation. We have made £82 million available to finance progress towards implementation this year.
  558
  We have issued detailed guidance on many subjects including the new contracting system for all district health authority hospitals and community units and on education and training for non-medical staff.

  We have recently launched a project to support district health authorities in detailed work on developing the key role which DHA's will have under the new system of identifying and obtaining the best pattern of services which will most effectively meet all the health needs of the populations they serve.

  We have received more than 180 expressions of interest from potential NHS hospital trusts; 79 of them are proceeding towards being in the first wave of applicants for self-governing status within the NHS in April 1991 and I expect many more to be ready for later waves of applicants in future years.

  We are spending more than £1 million on the development of self-audit systems by the medical profession and a £4·5 million scheme has been launched to develop information technology skills. Demonstration projects, aimed at improving the quality of care and service to patients, have been announced for five out-patient departments. The principles of general management are being introduced into the family practitioner committee system.

  Good progress is also being made in relation to medical education and research. As I explained in a speech on 10 July, since sent to all hospital doctors, I intend to take powers to ensure, for instance, the continuation of high standards of undergraduate, postgraduate and continuing medical education and research in all NHS hospitals. I will also ensure that postgraduate training posts are provided in NHS hospital trusts in accordance with the national objectives set out in "Achieving a Balance". Medical education and research will be further enhanced by the proposed increased in the service increment for teaching (SIFT) to meet 100 per cent. of the median excess costs of teaching hospitals. This will be distributed by regions in consultation with medical schools.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the aims of the proposals affecting family practitioner committees in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The proposals in the White Paper which directly affect family practitioner committees are designed to equip each committee to take on the major tasks of implementing in 1990 new contracts of service for medical and dental practitioners; of helping to introduce the reforms proposed in the White Paper "Working for Patients" which affect family doctors; and generally to manage and develop effectively all the primary health care services for which they are responsible in the light of the Government's proposals in the White Paper "Promoting Better Health".

  Mr. Carttiss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implications for patient choice of the proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how patients' choice will be affected by the proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Our proposals will help to ensure that patients are given reliable appointment times,
  559
  better waiting and counselling facilities, much fuller information about the services available and about their own care and quicker notification of diagnostic test results. We are asking everyone working in the Health Service to recognise the importance of the individual patient.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to deal with the national shortage of qualified social workers.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given by my hon. and learned Friend to him on 19 June at columns 37–8.

  Hospital Building Schemes
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to encourage health authorities to take advantage of unconventional financing hospital building schemes as envisaged in paragraph 9:14 of "Working for Patients"; how many such schemes have been proposed to, and approved by, him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  As stated in the White Paper "Working for Patients" the Government welcome any proposals which make imaginative use of the private sector's skills, including financing, which can result in the more cost-effective and quicker development of new and existing services. The key factor, however, is to ensure that best value for money is achieved through the use of such finance, and the Department has recently issued guidance to health authorities on the procedures to be followed where private sector finance is involved.

  It is for health authorities to demonstrate the best value for money can be achieved through the use of private sector finance. To date I have received only one substantive case, for a district general hospital development at Bromley, in which use of private sector finance may be cost effective. Approval has therefore been given for the authority to proceed to the first stage of a competitive tendering exercise to establish the relative costs of this approach before final approval can be given.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received representations about the level of speech therapy provision in the North-East London regional health authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received no such representations recently.

  Student Nurses
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial support he intends to make available for student nurses' living costs.

  Mr. Freeman
  Levels of student nurse salaries and bursaries were announced respectively by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 16 February at columns 302–3, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 16 June at column 556.

  Community Nursing
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what future community nursing services have in light of plans for community services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Community nursing staff will have a crucial role to play in our proposed new arrangements for community care. Community nursing services will continue to be planned and provided by health authorites.

  NHS Costs
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the average family of four now contributes on a weekly basis towards the cost of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not possible to provide the information as requested. The major part of NHS funding comes from the consolidated fund and it is not possible to distinguish between the proportion contributed by private taxpayers and taxation raised from other sources. However, NHS expenditure in 1989–90 per average family of four persons is estimated at £35 per week.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the variations in cost of treatment between different health districts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Health Service indicators published by the Department every year show a wide degree of variation in costs of treatment between different authorities. The indicators of treatment expenditure per consultant episode for 1987–88 published in July varied by a factor of three. There may be good reasons for variations and district and regional management will wish to examine them carefully to see whether there is any scope for improvements. The proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients" will also help to reduce unjustifiable cost variations.

  Indicative Drug Budgets
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how patient care will be affected by the proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients" for indicative drug budgets.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that my hon. and learned Friend the then Minister for Health gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir Michael McNair-Wilson) on 23 May at column 479.

  Wathwood Hospital, Rotherham
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will direct the Rotherham health authority to retain the Wathwood hospital and the present number of beds for the elderly infirm which are currently provided at this hospital.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The provision of local health services is a matter for the district health authority concerned, in this case Rotherham health authority.

  Patients (Statistics)
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of National Health Service patients being treated each year; and what was the number treated in 1979.

  Cases treated, NHS hospitals, England, 1979 and 1987–88

  1979

  1987–88

  Change

  Percentage change

  In-patients

  5,400,120

  6,619,354

  1,219,234

  22·6

  Day cases

  592,061

  880,852

  288,791

  48·8

  New out-patients

  7,713,465

  8,529,759

  816,294

  10·6

  Source: 1979 SH3 returns, 1987–88 SH3a, KH09 & 18 returns.

  Hearing Aid Service
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress officials in his Department have made in drawing up a programme of action to improve the hearing aid service.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), on 27 July at columns 918–19. We have set up a working group consisting of officials from this Department and Mersey regional health authority, a consultant otolaryngologist, a community physician, an audiological scientists, an audiological technician, a representative of the private sector hearing aid industry and a representative of RNID, together with an observer from the Department of Trade and Industry, to work up a programme of action, including proposals for direct referral pilot schemes, some of which we expect to start early in the next financial year. The first meeting of the working group has been arranged for 20 November.

  Opting Out
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the additional financial resources being made available to each regional health authority to assist the proposals for opting out;

  (2) what additional resources have been made available to the Northern regional health authority to assist their proposals for hospitals and the Northumbria ambulance service to opt out.

  Mr. Freeman
  More than £82 million has been made available this year for the implementation of the White Paper. Of this, £32 million has been allocated to the regions to enable them to develop the finance and personnel functions, to strengthen the public health function and to prepare for the introduction of capital charges and medical audit. Northern region has been allocated £2·04 million. While no additional resources have been made available specifically for the preparation of NHS trusts, all authorities including those with units considering this option will benefit from the overall strengthening of key management functions.

  Hospitals, Mersey Region
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about proposals for the future of National Health Service hospitals in the Mersey region; and what his response has been.
  562
  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received various representations from hon. Members and members of the public. These have been considered in the light of local circumstances and answered accordingly.

  Old Persons' Homes
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that normal National Health Service ancillary health care shall be available to residents in private old persons' homes without a charge being made.

  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibility for providing community health services, including services to people in private and voluntary residential care homes, rest with district health authorities. There is no power to charge for such services.

  Authorities have to plan and provide their services within the resources available in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Their performance is monitored through the annual accountability and review process.

  Resources (South Bedfordshire)
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether discussions between the North-West Thames regional health authority and South Bedfordshire district health authority in the summer have resulted in an increase in the allocation of resources to south Bedfordshire.

  Mr. Freeman
  Allocations to district health authorities are the responsibility of the regional health authority. My hon. Friend may wish to direct his question to the chairman of the North West Thames regional health authority.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of people on the waiting list for hospitals in the Bradford health authority; and if he will make statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There were 6,386 people on the in-patient waiting list for Bradford district health authority at 31 March 1989. Bradford is one of 22 districts with long waiting lists that was chosen this year for investigation by an independent management team. This has led to additional funding of £206,000 for 1,000 additional patients to be treated from the waiting list in the district.
  563
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the figures for those on hospital waiting lists at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There were 704,700 people on in-patient waiting lists at 31 March 1989, the latest date for which figures are available centrally.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many additional patients have been treated over the last 12 months for which figures are available as a result of the waiting list initiative.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In 1988–89 the £30 million waiting list fund enabled more than 117,000 additional in-patients and day cases and more than 93,000 additional out-patients to be treated from the waiting lists. This year health authorities are using £25 million from the £31 million fund to treat a further 100,000 in-patients and day cases and 90,000 out-patients; £6 million of the fund is being directed towards treating additional patients in those districts with the most serious waiting problems.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans to reduce waiting lists.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In the three years to March 1990, the Government have made available a total of £86 million through the special waiting list fund to tackle particular waiting problems. This special funding has enabled over 200,000 extra in-patients and day cases to be treated from the waiting lists in the first two years, as well

  In-patient waiting list1, 31 March 1988–31 March 1989, by District Health Authority

  March 1988

  September 1988

  March 1989

  Waiting list

  District health authority

  Number

  Rank

  Number

  Rank

  Number

  Rank

  fund allocation 1988–89

  Hartlepool

  1,116

  175

  1,205

  172

  1,167

  175

  76,484

  North Tees

  1,251

  170

  1,219

  171

  1,507

  163

  44,184

  South Tees

  5,153

  37

  5,268

  36

  4,797

  48

  437,600

  East Cumbria

  3,524

  78

  3,577

  74

  3,422

  88

  139,046

  South Cumbria

  1,105

  176

  1,266

  170

  1,206

  173

  8,150

  West Cumbria

  1,406

  164

  1,391

  164

  1,334

  171

  0

  Darlington

  2,172

  137

  2,332

  125

  2,163

  134

  185,700

  Durham

  1,384

  166

  1,357

  167

  1,425

  166

  38,811

  North West Durham

  845

  183

  830

  184

  763

  186

  0

  South West Durham

  1,086

  177

  980

  178

  1,048

  181

  19,000

  Northumberland

  1,636

  157

  1,628

  151

  1,671

  157

  82,898

  Gateshead

  1,275

  169

  1,341

  168

  1,109

  178

  54,100

  Newcastle

  8,032

  9

  7,813

  9

  8,669

  7

  297,679

  North Tyneside

  1,189

  173

  1,018

  177

  1,057

  179

  59,472

  South Tyneside

  797

  185

  815

  186

  886

  182

  23,835

  Sunderland

  4,073

  65

  3,889

  64

  4,609

  53

  529,532

  Hull

  8,559

  6

  7,357

  14

  6,867

  18

  480,600

  East Yorkshire

  1,768

  153

  1,841

  145

  1,580

  159

  22,000

  Grimsby

  1,149

  174

  1,032

  176

  1,746

  154

  0

  Scunthorpe

  2,843

  108

  2,875

  103

  2,881

  107

  133,500

  Northallerton

  677

  188

  703

  187

  700

  187

  0

  York

  2,549

  117

  2,784

  109

  2,557

  121

  178,000

  Scarborough

  2,043

  139

  2,103

  134

  2,081

  138

  0

  Harrogate

  1,761

  154

  1,549

  155

  2,074

  139

  11,550

  Bradford

  6,978

  19

  6,388

  23

  6,836

  19

  238,160

  Airedale

  2,351

  126

  2,223

  130

  2,502

  124

  171,200

  Calderdale

  1,044

  180

  1,086

  175

  1,053

  180

  16,000

  Huddersfield

  2,099

  138

  1,793

  147

  2,215

  131

  39,828

  Dewsbury

  763

  187

  574

  189

  782

  184

  0

  Leeds Western

  5,663

  30

  5,756

  28

  6,201

  23

  63,475

  Leeds Eastern

  6,993

  18

  6,906

  21

  6,529

  21

  264,590

  Wakefield

  2,037

  140

  2,313

  127

  2,101

  136

  56,463

  Pontefract

  2,002

  145

  1,701

  150

  2,056

  140

  324,000

  North Derbyshire

  2,354

  125

  2,800

  108

  2,152

  135

  250,900

  564
  as more than 130,000 out-patients. This year health authorities are using the fund to treat an additional 100,000 in-patients/day cases and 90,000 out-patients. We intend to allocate further funds for tackling long waiting times in 1990–91, and I will be making a statement about this soon.

  Earlier this year my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) sent a management team, led by John Yates of Inter Authority Comparisons and Consultancy, into the 22 districts with the longest waiting times in the country, to find out why the lists there are so long, and to suggest how they can be shortened. As a result of this work, backed up by money from the waiting list fund, the number of patients waiting over a year in the 43 specialties studied has already reduced by a quarter. I intend this valuable and effective work to continue next year.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list district health authorities in England in rank order of size of waiting list as at September 1989, stating also their position as at March 1989, September 1988, and March 1988, the size of waiting list at each date and the amount in total and per head of population expended under the waiting list initiative for 1988–89.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: The information requested is given in the table and the ranking is based on waiting list data for 31 March 1989 which are the latest figures available centrally. The amount of waiting list money per head of population cannot be accurately calculated by district as projects funded can involve cross-boundary flow.
  565

  March 1988

  September 1988

  March 1989

  Waiting list fund allocation 1988–89

  District health authority

  Number

  Rank

  Number

  Rank

  Number

  Rank

  Southern Derbyshire

  4,986

  40

  4,554

  48

  5,182

  39

  228,400

  Leicestershire

  8,413

  7

  8,700

  4

  8,495

  9

  304,320

  North Lincolnshire

  3,014

  97

  2,999

  96

  2,851

  111

  60,000

  South Lincolnshire

  3,157

  89

  3,484

  78

  3,237

  93

  308,000

  Bassetlaw

  1,247

  171

  1,381

  165

  1,136

  176

  274,000

  Central Nottinghamshire

  4,061

  66

  4,149

  57

  4,745

  49

  200,000

  Nottingham

  7,299

  16

  6,311

  26

  8,360

  11

  254,000

  Barnsley

  2,279

  128

  2,398

  124

  2,529

  123

  80,000

  Doncaster

  4,222

  62

  4,536

  50

  3,991

  68

  434,100

  Rotherham

  3,113

  94

  3,141

  90

  3,420

  89

  82,500

  Sheffield

  10,931

  2

  10,441

  2

  10,820

  3

  430,700

  Cambridge

  4,305

  59

  4,166

  56

  4,431

  59

  91,119

  Peterborough

  4,608

  48

  4,841

  42

  4,675

  51

  161,490

  West Suffolk

  3,147

  91

  2,685

  112

  3,610

  74

  17,700

  East Suffolk

  3,774

  74

  3,488

  77

  4,154

  65

  99,300

  Norwich

  9,995

  3

  9,041

  3

  11,507

  2

  359,800

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  3,713

  76

  3,535

  75

  4,031

  67

  186,140

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  2,408

  122

  2,230

  129

  2,461

  125

  87,500

  Huntingdon

  1,467

  163

  1,132

  173

  1,620

  158

  0

  North Bedfordshire

  1,818

  151

  1,702

  149

  1,743

  155

  30,000

  South Bedfordshire

  2,952

  100

  3,061

  94

  2,950

  104

  58,100

  North Hertfordshire

  2,979

  98

  2,883

  102

  3,107

  97

  218,900

  East Hertfordshire

  1,309

  168

  1,510

  158

  1,537

  162

  175,000

  North West Hertfordshire

  1,057

  179

  969

  179

  1,185

  174

  136,500

  South West Hertfordshire

  1,694

  155

  1,378

  166

  1,565

  161

  50,650

  Barnet

  2,970

  99

  2,941

  98

  3,021

  101

  26,250

  Harrow

  1,405

  165

  1,481

  160

  1,814

  150

  20,000

  Hillingdon

  7,773

  11

  7,579

  11

  6,993

  17

  346,500

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  6,221

  25

  6,369

  24

  5,834

  27

  370,000

  Ealing

  1,961

  148

  1,799

  146

  1,423

  167

  100,270

  Riverside

  5,897

  28

  6,254

  27

  5,913

  25

  0

  Parkside

  6,734

  21

  6,359

  25

  5,885

  26

  244,300

  Basildon and Thurrock

  5,734

  29

  5,428

  34

  5,568

  30

  456,000

  Mid Essex

  5,097

  38

  5,291

  35

  5,348

  36

  71,404

  North East Essex

  3,212

  87

  2,914

  100

  3,514

  80

  220,413

  West Essex

  5,589

  31

  5,433

  33

  5,557

  31

  55,241

  Southend

  4,465

  53

  4,138

  58

  3,456

  82

  77,182

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  9,782

  4

  8,137

  7

  9,447

  4

  390,000

  Hampstead

  4,386

  57

  3,793

  67

  3,413

  90

  17,800

  Bloomsbury

  14,287

  1

  13,991

  1

  13,680

  1

  381,221

  Islington

  2,263

  130

  3,322

  85

  2,240

  130

  0

  City and Hackney

  5,408

  33

  5,493

  32

  5,470

  33

  83,013

  Newham

  1,003

  181

  969

  180

  1,122

  177

  25,639

  Tower Hamlets

  5,272

  35

  5,652

  30

  5,385

  34

  156,000

  Enfield

  3,345

  81

  3,446

  80

  3,604

  75

  170,300

  Haringey

  2,010

  143

  1,101

  174

  2,659

  118

  0

  Redbridge

  1,975

  146

  2,198

  131

  1,972

  144

  120,085

  Waltham Forest

  5,556

  32

  4,895

  40

  5,628

  28

  47,544

  Brighton

  4,432

  55

  4,387

  52

  4,358

  61

  159,550

  Eastbourne

  3,829

  72

  3,609

  72

  3,676

  71

  167,000

  Hastings

  2,864

  105

  2,754

  110

  2,768

  114

  90,000

  South East Kent

  2,849

  106

  2,588

  119

  3,043

  100

  0

  Canterbury and Thanet

  4,732

  46

  5,266

  37

  4,722

  50

  98,750

  Dartford and Gravesham

  3,972

  69

  3,911

  63

  4,219

  64

  90,000

  Maidstone

  3,812

  73

  3,441

  81

  3,382

  91

  211,408

  Medway

  2,743

  111

  2,597

  118

  3,549

  78

  151,000

  Tunbridge Wells

  4,501

  50

  4,553

  49

  4,374

  60

  102,800

  Bexley

  1,515

  160

  1,605

  152

  1,977

  143

  209,750

  Greenwich

  2,391

  123

  2,864

  104

  2,575

  120

  70,400

  Bromley

  2,269

  129

  2,084

  135

  1,771

  152

  181,200

  West Lambeth

  5,944

  27

  7,332

  16

  4,802

  47

  253,200

  Camberwell

  2,426

  121

  1,987

  139

  2,327

  129

  0

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  7,340

  14

  7,247

  18

  6,429

  22

  471,200

  North West Surrey

  2,836

  109

  3,239

  87

  2,962

  102

  165,000

  West Surrey and North East Hants

  4,779

  45

  4,569

  47

  4,586

  54

  520,000

  South West Surrey

  3,273

  84

  2,682

  113

  2,871

  109

  95,000

  Mid Surrey

  2,931

  102

  1,940

  141

  2,188

  132

  170,000

  East Surrey

  3,148

  90

  2,629

  115

  3,449

  83

  120,000

  Chichester

  2,200

  134

  1,861

  144

  2,551

  122

  175,000

  Mid Downs

  4,651

  47

  3,528

  76

  4,902

  42

  0

  566 567

  March 1988

  September 1988

  March 1989

  Waiting list

  District health authority

  Number

  Rank

  Number

  Rank

  Number

  Rank

  fund allocation 1988–89

  Worthing

  4,249

  61

  3,935

  62

  4,479

  55

  408,000

  Croydon

  2,190

  135

  2,066

  136

  2,358

  128

  0

  Kingston and Esher

  2,460

  120

  2,138

  133

  3,432

  85

  340,000

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  2,730

  112

  2,626

  116

  2,816

  113

  0

  Wandsworth

  2,543

  118

  2,165

  132

  3,444

  84

  0

  Merton and Sutton

  3,015

  96

  3,205

  89

  3,089

  98

  0

  East Dorset

  4,832

  42

  5,165

  38

  4,875

  44

  190,776

  West Dorset

  2,227

  132

  2,025

  137

  2,092

  137

  6,000

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  6,779

  20

  7,404

  13

  5,612

  29

  300,000

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  6,520

  23

  7,051

  19

  8,542

  8

  222,000

  Winchester

  3,132

  93

  2,809

  106

  2,723

  116

  110,000

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  2,382

  124

  3,300

  86

  2,638

  119

  137,000

  Salisbury

  6,349

  24

  6,547

  22

  6,046

  24

  128,500

  Swindon

  2,623

  116

  2,922

  99

  3,069

  99

  147,000

  Bath

  5,291

  34

  4,982

  39

  5,506

  32

  150,000

  Isle of Wight

  1,472

  162

  1,521

  157

  1,475

  164

  58,000

  East Berkshire

  7,317

  15

  7,562

  12

  8,056

  13

  80,000

  West Berkshire

  4,816

  44

  4,743

  45

  5,260

  38

  50,000

  Aylesbury Vale

  2,906

  104

  3,367

  83

  3,185

  96

  100,000

  Wycombe

  804

  184

  930

  181

  806

  183

  13,000

  Milton Keynes

  2,031

  141

  1,991

  138

  1,722

  156

  300,000

  Kettering

  4,268

  60

  4,193

  55

  5,014

  40

  80,000

  Northampton

  3,606

  77

  3,688

  69

  3,458

  81

  50,000

  Oxfordshire

  7,248

  17

  6,964

  20

  7,857

  15

  490,000

  Bristol and Weston

  7,461

  13

  8,035

  8

  8,056

  14

  209,920

  Frenchay

  2,950

  101

  2,980

  97

  2,166

  133

  236,500

  Southmead

  1,774

  152

  1,506

  159

  1,939

  145

  33,507

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  5,180

  36

  3,942

  61

  5,372

  35

  130,596

  Exeter

  4,060

  67

  3,627

  71

  4,613

  52

  100,500

  North Devon

  2,018

  142

  1,906

  143

  2,016

  141

  58,430

  Plymouth

  6,180

  26

  5,634

  31

  6,754

  20

  392,255

  Torbay

  2,654

  114

  2,716

  111

  2,767

  115

  297,000

  Cheltenham

  2,321

  127

  2,635

  114

  2,951

  103

  131,400

  Gloucester

  3,911

  70

  4,030

  60

  4,854

  46

  111,998

  Somerset

  4,902

  41

  4,818

  44

  5,310

  37

  194,352

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  1,580

  159

  1,320

  169

  1,860

  149

  0

  Herefordshire

  3,430

  79

  3,108

  92

  3,648

  72

  0

  Kidderminster and District

  1,315

  167

  1,438

  162

  1,408

  168

  0

  Worcester and District

  3,236

  86

  3,333

  84

  3,211

  95

  0

  Shropshire

  7,639

  12

  7,611

  10

  8,360

  12

  210,000

  Mid Staffordshire

  1,868

  150

  1,775

  148

  1,274

  172

  0

  North Staffordshire

  8,588

  5

  8,466

  5

  8,431

  10

  328,000

  South East Staffordshire

  3,144

  92

  2,911

  101

  3,431

  86

  0

  Rugby

  784

  186

  919

  182

  769

  185

  0

  North Warwickshire

  3,099

  95

  3,026

  95

  2,688

  117

  0

  South Warwickshire

  2,844

  107

  2,481

  122

  2,914

  106

  20,000

  Central Birmingham

  4,832

  43

  4,865

  41

  4,452

  58

  0

  East Birmingham

  2,178

  136

  2,488

  121

  1,886

  147

  392,000

  North Birmingham

  1,681

  156

  1,434

  163

  1,908

  146

  0

  South Birmingham

  4,592

  49

  5,743

  29

  3,640

  73

  616,100

  West Birmingham

  3,346

  80

  3,605

  73

  2,879

  108

  90,000

  Coventry

  4,212

  63

  4,655

  46

  4,462

  57

  886,000

  Dudley

  4,491

  52

  3,845

  65

  4,864

  45

  146,000

  Sandwell

  2,009

  144

  1,953

  140

  2,013

  142

  119,900

  Solihull

  1,202

  172

  1,573

  154

  1,383

  170

  150,000

  Walsall

  2,523

  119

  2,585

  120

  2,405

  127

  0

  Wolverhampton

  3,868

  71

  3,662

  70

  3,745

  70

  24,000

  Chester

  3,182

  88

  3,094

  93

  3,536

  79

  65,000

  Crewe

  4,459

  54

  4,232

  54

  3,567

  77

  239,400

  Halton

  203

  190

  107

  190

  156

  190

  245,000

  Macclesfield

  1,065

  178

  834

  183

  1,402

  169

  75,000

  Warrington

  2,231

  131

  1,925

  142

  1,870

  148

  210,000

  Liverpool

  8,311

  8

  8,218

  6

  8,804

  6

  202,025

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  3,760

  75

  3,775

  68

  3,586

  76

  195,500

  Southport and Formby

  1,630

  158

  1,549

  156

  1,753

  153

  83,000

  South Sefton

  3,242

  85

  3,453

  79

  3,232

  94

  266,610

  Wirral

  4,038

  68

  3,844

  66

  4,133

  66

  0

  Lancaster

  2,677

  113

  2,312

  128

  2,826

  112

  84,300

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  3,304

  83

  3,399

  82

  3,431

  87

  57,400

  568 569

  March 1988

  September 1988

  March 1989

  Waiting list fund allocation 1988–89

  District health authority

  Number

  Rank

  Number

  Rank

  Number

  Rank

  Preston

  5,080

  39

  4,828

  43

  4,897

  43

  148,600

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  3,339

  82

  3,225

  88

  3,761

  69

  250,000

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  1,971

  147

  2,329

  126

  1,807

  151

  151,800

  West Lancashire

  2,210

  133

  2,401

  123

  2,852

  110

  91,600

  Chorley and South Ribble

  582

  189

  666

  188

  636

  188

  66,900

  Bolton

  2,922

  103

  2,607

  117

  2,936

  105

  101,100

  Bury

  903

  182

  825

  185

  373

  189

  45,800

  North Manchester

  2,806

  110

  3,135

  91

  2,457

  126

  77,400

  Central Manchester

  7,865

  10

  7,353

  15

  9,441

  5

  272,600

  South Manchester

  6,670

  22

  7,265

  17

  7,483

  16

  100,000

  Oldham

  4,494

  51

  4,249

  53

  4,903

  41

  317,900

  Rochdale

  2,654

  115

  2,821

  105

  3,280

  92

  201,800

  Salford

  4,196

  64

  2,803

  107

  4,477

  56

  202,500

  Stockport

  4,384

  58

  4,446

  51

  4,324

  62

  69,100

  Tameside and Glossop

  1,899

  149

  1,604

  153

  1,566

  160

  92,400

  Trafford

  1,480

  161

  1,470

  161

  1,469

  165

  98,800

  Wigan

  4,402

  56

  4,080

  59

  4,310

  63

  106,000

  1Total less self deferred.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current waiting list for operations in(a) the west midlands and (b) the Walsall borough (i) in total and (ii) of those waiting for over 12 months; and if he will list the operations needing to be performed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: Waiting list information is available centrally only by the specialty of treatment and not by operation. The available information is given in the table:

  Gross demand in-patient waiting list, surgical1 acute specialties 31 March 1989

  Total

  Number waiting 12 months or more

  West Midlands RHA

  73,003

  19,753

  Walsall DHA

  2,577

  412

  1 Including gynaecology.

  Ear, Nose and Throat Services
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the present waiting lists for ear, nose and throat patients in Sheffield(a) to see an ear, nose and throat specialist and (b) for hearing aid appointments; and what plans there are to shorten the lists.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We do not collect information on out-patient waiting times centrally. On our plans to reduce waiting times generally I refer the hon. Member to my reply today to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell).

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any recommendations for the number of sessions for ear, nose and throat surgeons.

  1. Numbers of haemophiliacs reported as HIV-antibody positive to the Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre (Colindale) and the Communicable Diseases (Scotland) Unit.

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Cumulative Total

  England, Wales and Northern Ireland

  495

  371

  76

  44

  34

  11,020

  Scotland2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  76

  United Kingdom Total

  1,096

  570
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number and type of sessions worked by any consultant, including ENT surgeons, is a matter for agreement between the consultant and his/her employing authority.

  GPs
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about trends in the average general practitioner's list size since 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Over the last 10 years the average list size of family doctors in England has continued to fall from 2,286 in 1979 to 1,999 in 1988, a decrease of more than 12 per cent.

  Haemophiliacs (HIV)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest number of haemophiliacs who have been infected with the AIDS virus following a National Health Service blood transfusion; and how many have died.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has readily available figures as to how many haemophiliacs have been diagnosed as HIV positive over any convenient period in the last five years; and if he will make a statement on policy towards help for such patients.

  Mr. Freeman
  The available information is shown in the tables. The Government provided £10 million to set up the Macfarlane trust to meet the special needs of people in the United Kingdom with haemophilia and HIV infection, and their dependants.
  571
  1The actual number of known HIV-1 infected haemophiliacs may be greater as some may have been included in the undetermined exposure category.

  2Yearly figures not available centrally.

  2. Cumulative number of haemophiliacs with AIDS known to have died in the United Kingdom by 30 September 1989

  Number

  102

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Andrew McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many National Health Service prescriptions are being dispensed per year; and what was the figure for 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of prescriptions dispensed in England during 1988, the latest year for which information is available, was 371 million. In 1979, 321 million prescriptions were dispensed.

  Poland (Medical Aid)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has had concerning the provisions of medical aid for Poland.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have not received any representations on this subject but my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs received one inquiry about medical equipment in September this year. I visited Poland at the invitation of the Polish Minister of Health and Social Welfare in April this year for discussions and as a result we are now looking at various proposals for co-operation on medical training, health service reforms and a broadening of the scope of the United Kingdom-Poland health co-operation agreement.

  BMA
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received any statements from the British Medical Association recently; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on 3 November at column 385.

  Patients (York)
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many in-patients were treated in the York health authority area in 1978 and 1988, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  During the financial year 1987–88, 34,062 in-patient cases were treated by York district health authority, an increase of 26·2 per cent. over the 1978 figure of 26,997.

  Royal National Institute for the Deaf
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to meet the Royal National Institute for the Deaf to discuss current legislation.
  572
  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled and I met representatives from the Royal National Institute for the Deaf on 24 October 1989 to discuss its proposals for improving hearing aid services in the light of my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) on 27 July at columns 918–19.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has that patients are susceptible to changing their general practitioners according to the differing perceived levels of service available; and to what extent the patient is able to measure that perception.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is the Government's view, clearly set out in our White Paper "Promoting Better Health", that patients should have adequate information on which to base their choice of general practitioner. A number of measures are being implemented to achieve this objective, including, for those who choose to do so, a simplified procedure for changing doctor.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will tabulate the percentage of the trained and qualified personnel of the London ambulance accident and emergency service who have resigned or taken early retirement during each of the years 1985 to 1988.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the South West Thames regional health authority, which manages the London ambulance service. The hon. Member may therefore wish to contact the chairman of the authority, Mrs. Julia Cumberlege.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that ambulancemen receive payment for the additional man hours involved in participating in riot and public disorder training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: Special incident collaborative training, including public order aspects, has for some years been available to ambulance service staff. Attendance at the training attracts normal rates of pay.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the staff employed by the London ambulance service on accident and emergency work between 1 September and 31 October per 24-hour period(a) by day and (b) by night.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: The information requested is available only in the format shown as follows:

  Early shift

  Late shift

  Night shift

  Friday 1 September 1989

  235

  253

  152

  Saturday 2 September 1989

  254

  243

  138

  Sunday 3 September 1989

  225

  216

  148

  Monday 4 September 1989

  294

  271

  156

  573

  Early shift

  Late shift

  Night shift

  Tuesday 5 September 1989

  290

  282

  180

  Wednesday 6 September 1989

  299

  230

  180

  Thursday 7 September 1989

  297

  274

  158

  Friday 8 September 1989

  292

  270

  151

  Saturday 9 September 1989

  252

  241

  139

  Sunday 10 September 1989

  235

  219

  158

  Monday 11 September 1989

  296

  288

  159

  Tuesday 12 September 1989

  288

  282

  155

  Wednesday 13 September 1989

  287

  276

  132

  Thursday 14 September 1989

  236

  248

  124

  Friday 15 September 1989

  246

  241

  118

  Saturday 16 September 1989

  206

  216

  104

  Sunday 17 September 1989

  172

  198

  104

  Monday 18 September 1989

  257

  248

  138

  Tuesday 19 September 1989

  259

  243

  139

  Wednesday 20 September 1989

  256

  241

  142

  Thursday 21 September 1989

  248

  239

  138

  Friday 22 September 1989

  244

  239

  120

  Saturday 23 September 1989

  211

  195

  110

  Sunday 24 September 1989

  190

  172

  114

  Monday 25 September 1989

  250

  248

  146

  Tuesday 26 September 1989

  288

  244

  130

  Wednesday 27 September 1989

  250

  248

  144

  Thursday 28 September 1989

  244

  244

  140

  Friday 29 September 1989

  264

  231

  125

  Saturday 30 September 1989

  208

  190

  115

  Sunday 1 October 1989

  187

  177

  129

  Monday 2 October 1989

  269

  245

  126

  Tuesday 3 October 1989

  270

  240

  134

  Wednesday 4 October 1989

  256

  247

  133

  Thursday 5 October 1989

  270

  232

  135

  Friday 6 October 1989

  256

  231

  120

  Saturday 7 October 1989

  224

  206

  110

  Sunday 8 October 1989

  183

  196

  130

  Monday 9 October 1989

  254

  246

  161

  Tuesday 10 October 1989

  254

  254

  153

  Wednesday 11 October 1989

  262

  248

  169

  Thursday 12 October 1989

  269

  236

  166

  Friday 13 October 1989

  252

  237

  152

  Saturday 14 October 1989

  234

  219

  143

  Sunday 15 October 1989

  192

  189

  144

  Monday 16 October 1989

  254

  247

  159

  Tuesday 17 October 1989

  268

  247

  156

  Wednesday 18 October 1989

  258

  246

  152

  Thursday 19 October 1989

  244

  248

  155

  Friday 20 October 1989

  249

  244

  137

  Saturday 21 October 1989

  216

  214

  112

  Sunday 22 October 1989

  199

  186

  127

  Monday 23 October 1989

  Dispute day/figures unavailable

  Tuesday 24 October 1989

  Dispute day/figures unavailable

  Wednesday 25 October 1989

  272

  247

  140

  Thursday 26 October 1989

  257

  236

  142

  Friday 27 October 1989

  257

  233

  115

  Saturday 28 October 1989

  235

  208

  109

  Sunday 29 October 1989

  214

  204

  118

  Monday 30 October 1989

  264

  250

  144

  Tuesday 31 October 1989

  282

  256

  137

  Bassetlaw Hospital
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his visit to Bassetlaw hospital, Worksop, on 23 October.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I had a useful and enjoyable visit to Bassetlaw district general hospital during which I saw some of the facilities at the hospital, had meetings with the district chairman and her management team and with the community health council and gave interviews to the local media. I also attended an informal lunch at which I met a number of the hospital's consultants and other senior professional staff.

  Nurses (Leicestershire Health Authority)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many Black and Asian nurses are employed by Leicestershire health authority; and how many of those are(a) state registered nurses and (b) state enrolled nurses;

  (2) how many nurses are currently employed by Leicestershire health authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At 30 September 1988 there were 6,570 whole-time equivalent nursing and midwifery staff in post in Leicestershire district health authority. We do not hold centrally information on the numbers of black and Asian nurses. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Leicestershire health authority for this information.

  Organ Transplants
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the anti rejection drug FK-506 is being used in clinical trials with organ transplant patients anywhere in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Before clinical trials can take place in the United Kingdom, a clinical trial certificate or exemption must be held. Details of applications under the Medicines Act 1968 are confidential to the licensing authority, and it is not the practice to say whether specific applications have been made.

  Workplace Nurseries
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide an estimate of the number of workplace nursery places available in the United Kingdom by number and by percentage of potential population.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  FK 506
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what consideration his Department has given to the question of against whom liability for use of the drug FK 506 will rest;

  (2) what discussions have taken place with the Japanese Government about allowing a supply of the anti-rejection drug FK 506 to be used in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Officials asked the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare to facilitate transmission of FK 506 by Fujisawa Pharmaceuticals from Japan for Dr. Roger Williams of Kings College hospital, London to use in treating his patient Mrs. Aisling Barnett following a liver transplant. I am glad to have this opportunity to express my gratitude to the Japanese Ministry for their prompt and effective response, and to all the others concerned, notably the British Embassy in Tokyo, British Airways, and the Metropolitan police.

  Responsibility for choice of medicinal product in patient care lies with the practitioner concerned. Where, as in this case, a product has not been granted a product licence under provisions of the Medicines Act 1968, the practitioner concerned may nevertheless choose to use the product for a particular named patient under the licensing exemptions provided in section 9 of the Act. Questions of

  575
  liability arising from that choice are a matter for the practitioner subject to relevant legal provisions in respect of product liability etc.

  Kidney Patients
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list region by region the number of kidney patients receiving haemodialysis or CAPD

  Region

  Hospital haemodialysis

  Home haemodialysis

  Intermittent peritoneal dialysis

  Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis

  Functioning graft

  Northern

  208

  19

  25

  168

  514

  Yorkshire

  209

  94

  1

  182

  381

  Trent

  215

  223

  2

  319

  584

  East Anglia

  114

  60

  —

  63

  419

  North West Thames

  161

  77

  12

  151

  469

  North East Thames

  191

  90

  5

  333

  821

  South East Thames

  181

  97

  4

  306

  1,160

  South West Thames

  11

  44

  0

  97

  165

  Wessex

  86

  32

  0

  135

  334

  Oxford

  99

  115

  0

  96

  418

  South Western

  99

  156

  4

  202

  460

  West Midlands

  198

  122

  1

  489

  194

  Mersey

  141

  49

  0

  67

  386

  North Western

  157

  144

  18

  265

  726

  1 Complete data not available.

  Patients are registered by the units treating them and are therefore recorded according to the health region in which the units are located, not according to the region in which patients live. Some patients cross regional boundaries to receive treatment, notably from South West Thames to South East Thames and from Wessex to South Western.

  There are no age limits for treatment of end-stage renal failure. The treatment of an individual patient is a matter for the responsible consultant, whose decisions will take account of the patient's clinical condition.

  Imported Medicines
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish figures for the annual consumption in the United Kingdom of parallel imported medicines for each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Suicide
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures he has for the number of officially recorded(a) suicides and (b) attempted suicides in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) Scotland for (1) all persons of 18 years and over, (2) all persons aged 45 to 65 years, (3) all persons of 18 years and over who were unemployed at the date of suicide or the attempt and (4) all persons aged 45 to 65 years who were unemployed at the date of suicide or the attempt, in each case showing men and women separately.

  Mr. Freeman
  The figures for suicides in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) Scotland for (1) all persons aged 18 years or over and (2) all persons aged 45 to 64 years are shown in the table. Information on the number of attempted suicides, and whether those people committing suicide were unemployed at time of death, is not available.
  576
  treatment and the numbers who have received transplants; and whether any regional health authorities impose age limits either for dialysis or for transplantation.

  Mr. Freeman
  According to information provided by the European Dialysis and Transplant Association, the number of patients alive on different forms of therapy on 31 December 1988, by English region, was as follows:

  Number of deaths by suicide1 United Kingdom and Scotland, 1988

  Age 18 +

  Age 45 to 64

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  United Kingdom

  3,548

  1,346

  956

  415

  Scotland

  418

  167

  122

  45

  1International classification of diseases, 9th revision, codes E950 to E959.

  Skoal Bandits
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to ban the sale of Skoal Bandits in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have proposed a total ban on the supply of all oral snuff products, including Skoal Bandits. On 7 August this proposal was notified to the European Commission and the GATT secretariat in accordance with our international obligations. EC member states have until 9 November to let us have any views on the proposal, but this deadline can be extended if there are objections or if the Commission wishes to bring forward its own proposals for the Community as a whole. The Government will reach a final decision on whether to proceed to a ban as quickly as possible once this procedure has been completed.

  Immunisation and Screening
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his intention to support general practitioners' efforts to meet immunisation and screening targets by conducting a public information and education campaign.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: The Department is preparing, with the Health Education Authority, an information and education campaign on immunisation. We hope that this will be launched in 1990 and will be aimed both at professionals and the public.
  577
  The improvements which we have asked health authorities to make to their cervical cancer screening programmes will lead to a more systematic approach to screening and increased coverage of the population. The routine invitations generated by the call and recall programme will inform women of the need for regular screening. In addition, the Health Education Authority has produced a leaflet, "The Cervical Smear Test: Why You Need It", which health authorities and family practitioner committees can enclose with invitation letters to women, and has issued guidelines on the points which should be covered in the invitation letter. We take every opportunity to encourage representatives of women's organisations to inform their members about the value of both the cervical and breast screening programmes.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teachers (Absenteeism)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the latest figures for absenteeism among teachers by local education authority and sector.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The employment and deployment of teachers is a matter for LEAs. This information is not collected by the Department.

  Physical Education Curriculum Group
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will immediately reconvene the physical education curriculum group.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State announced in January 1989 that arrangements for considering the content of guidelines for physical education in the national curriculum would be set

  United Kingdom earthquakes 1979 to August 1989

  (Richter magnitudes 2·5 and over)

  Date

  HrMnSecs

  Latitude

  Longitude

  Depth (km)

  Richter magnitude

  Localily

  Effects

  19 February 1979

  113932·7

  56·25

  -3·73

  6·0

  3·2

  Ochil Hills

  Minor damage, plaster cracks.

  7 October 1979

  0526

  5305

  -1·24

  —

  2·5

  Mansfield

  Felt, no damage.

  7 October 1979

  0812

  53·05

  -1·24

  —

  3·1

  Mansfield

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  9 October 1979

  1010

  53·05

  -1·24

  —

  3·0

  Mansfield

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  26 December 1979

  035707·3

  55·05

  -2·86

  5·0

  4·8

  Longtown

  Damage to chimneys, roof tiles.

  30 December 1979

  205301·4

  57·08

  -5·23

  —

  2·9

  Kintail

  —

  1 January 1980

  050547·0

  55·01

  -2·83

  9·0

  4·1

  Longtown

  Minor damage, plaster cracks.

  1 January 1980

  110503·0

  56·25

  -3·73

  2·0

  3·0

  Ochil Hills

  —

  12 January 1980

  084954·4

  51·67

  -3·00

  0·0

  3·0

  Cwmbran

  Felt, no damage.

  25 January 1980

  150129·9

  55·06

  -2·84

  4·0

  2·7

  Longtown

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  28 January 1980

  132230·0

  55·11

  -2·90

  2·0

  2·6

  Longtown

  —

  7 May 1980

  151203·3

  55·02

  -2·84

  7·0

  3·2

  Longtown

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  11 June 1980

  072227·3

  58·78

  0·95

  26·0

  3·2

  North Sea

  —

  7 July 1980

  235719·1

  53·1

  -2·2

  —

  2·7

  Talke area

  Felt, no damage.

  8 July 1980

  000248·4

  53·1

  -2·2

  —

  3·1

  Talke area

  Felt, no damage.

  17 July 1980

  0904

  53·1

  -2·2

  —

  2·5

  Stoke area

  —

  19 July 1980

  0533

  53·1

  -2·2

  —

  2·7

  Stoke area

  —

  30 July 1980

  153344·0

  55·07

  -2·84

  1·0

  2·5

  Longtown

  —

  7 August 1980

  0022

  53·1

  -2·2

  —

  3·0

  Stoke Coalfield

  —

  578
  up by June 1990. I hope to be able to announce shortly the form these arrangements will take and the associated timetable.

  School Playing Fields
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to rescind rule 909 and halt the sale of school playing fields.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The law places upon education authorities a duty to provide school playing fields in accordance with standards prescribed by the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981, Statutory Instrument No. 909. Local education authorities are free to dispose of any surplus if they wish, and this is not a matter in which my hon. Friend can intervene.

  Earthquakes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what research is being carried out into earthquakes occurring in the United Kingdom;

  (2) if he will list by location and date the number of earthquakes that have been recorded during the last 10 years; what damage was recorded; on what seismographic scale; and what research is being carried out by his Department into earthquakes.

  Mr. Jackson
  Research into earthquakes in the United Kingdom is carried out by the British Geological Survey, which is funded from the Department's grant to the Natural Environment Research Council. Specialist scientists, based at over 80 sites in the country, monitor current seismic activity. They also research historical records to identify the recurrence rate of the larger earthquakes.

  The following list sets out the information requested for all earthquakes recorded in the United Kingdom over the last 10 years, having a magnitude of 2·5 or more on the Richter scale.
  579

  Date

  HrMnSecs

  Latitude

  Longitude

  Depth (km)

  Richter magnitude

  Locality

  Effects

  14 August 1980

  2051

  53·1

  -2·2

  —

  2·6

  Stoke Coalfield

  9 November 1980

  001101·5

  53·10

  -2·28

  —

  3·2

  Talke area

  Felt, no damage.

  9 November 1980

  112833·0

  53·06

  -2·28

  5·0

  2·5

  Talke area

  Felt, no damage.

  1 December 1980

  142051·9

  56·25

  -3·74

  5·0

  2·6

  Ochil Hills

  13 December 1980

  103101·4

  55·02

  -2·86

  6·0

  3·5

  Longtown

  Minor damage, plaster cracks.

  1 January 1981

  212126·2

  57·47

  -0·18

  15·0

  3·2

  North Sea

  25 February 1981

  203256·8

  50·11

  -5·17

  5·0

  3·5

  Constantine

  6April 1981

  1752

  53·08

  -2·26

  3·0

  2·5

  Talke area

  24 May 1981

  0004

  53·03

  -2·19

  0·0

  3·1

  Stoke Coalfield

  2 June 1981

  1102

  53·03

  -1·14

  —

  2·7

  Nottingham

  Felt, no damage.

  9 June 1981

  184411·3

  57·12

  -5·50

  —

  2·6

  Kintail

  12 June 1981

  073642·7

  50·38

  -4·33

  8·0

  2·5

  Liskeard

  5 August 1981

  203409·6

  53·08

  -2·27

  4·0

  2·8

  Talke area

  18 October 1981

  160839·2

  54·69

  -1·66

  —

  2·5

  Bishop Aukland

  27 October 1981

  051344·1

  54·15

  0·30

  23·7

  3·7

  Flamborough Head

  Felt, no damage.

  9 November 1981

  0310

  51·65

  -2·98

  —

  2·7

  Cwmbran

  Felt, no damage.

  27 December 1981

  153624·7

  59·21

  -2·36

  12·0

  2·5

  Off Cape Wrath

  4April 1982

  214346·3

  51·99

  -3·47

  5·0

  2·6

  Pont-Faen, Powys

  9 April 1982

  143604·3

  53·06

  -2·22

  0·0

  2·7

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Felt, no damage.

  19 July 1982

  133352·2

  51·15

  -1·06

  1·4

  3·0

  Near Basingstoke, Hants

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  9 August 1982

  112505·8

  53·00

  -3·94

  8·4

  2·6

  Nr Ffestiniog, Gwynedd

  Felt, no damage.

  27 October 1982

  235733·6

  57·23

  -5·46

  2·5

  3·0

  Ratagan forest

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  28 November 1983

  024613·4

  53·55

  -2·65

  6·9

  2·6

  Wigan, Manchester

  —

  16 February 1984

  101546·4

  55·10

  -3·59

  3·0

  2·6

  Dumfries, Dumfries and Galloway

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  22 March 1984

  120956·5

  53·30

  -0·95

  25·8

  3·2

  East Retford, Notts

  Felt, no damage.

  3 April 1984

  142713·2

  50·61

  -2·47

  12·9

  3·1

  Nr Weymouth, Dorset

  —

  15 April 1984

  210534·9

  52·41

  -3·25

  12·7

  3·3

  Felindre, Powys

  Minor damage, plaster cracks.

  30 May 1984

  025358·7

  52·94

  -1·13

  15·0

  3·1

  Nottingham

  Minor damage, plaster cracks.

  4 June 1984

  141659·5

  53·79

  -0·90

  10·4

  3·0

  Selby, N Yorks

  —

  19 July 1984

  065613·6

  52·98

  -4·43

  18·0

  5·4

  Lleyn peninsula NW Wales

  Damage to chimneys, roof tiles.

  19 July 1984

  094208·4

  52·97

  -4·16

  20·0

  2·9

  Lleyn peninsula NW Wales

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  19 July 1984

  205318·8

  52·96

  -4·22

  20·0

  2·5

  Lleyn peninsula NW Wales

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  20 July 1984

  152613·1

  52·97

  -4·23

  20·0

  2·5

  Lleyn peninsula NW Wales

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  23 July 1984

  082927·4

  52·99

  -4·42

  15·4

  2·8

  Lleyn peninsula NW Wales

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  29 July 1984

  201757·3

  52·98

  -4·44

  21·2

  4·0

  Lleyn peninsula NW Wales

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  29 July 1984

  204522·1

  52·96

  -4·38

  20·2

  2·5

  Lleyn peninsula NW Wales

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  30 July 1984

  151552·1

  52·97

  -4·38

  20·0

  2·8

  Lleyn peninsula NW Wales

  Felt, no damage.

  2 August 1984

  011150·3

  59·76

  1·79

  5·4

  2·8

  North Sea

  —

  4 August 1984

  034411·8

  52·97

  -4·40

  24·1

  2·7

  Lleyn Peninsula, North West Wales

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  6 August 1984

  072220·7

  52·95

  -4·33

  24·7

  3·6

  Lleyn Peninsula, North West Wales

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  18 August 1984

  113727·7

  52·96

  -4·38

  21·0

  4·3

  Lleyn Peninsula, North West Wales

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  13 October 1984

  132719·5

  53·74

  -2·38

  14·0

  3·2

  Accrington, Lancashire

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  15 April 1985

  190209·5

  51·43

  1·56

  1·5

  3·0

  Offshore Ramsgate

  —

  1 June 1985

  224745·2

  53·59

  -0·39

  8·7

  2·6

  Near Scunthorpe

  —

  21 August 1985

  032409·3

  51·94

  -3·23

  15·4

  2·5

  Black mountains, Powys

  —

  16 September 1985

  205014·3

  56·04

  -4·91

  6·1

  3·5

  Ardentinny, Strathclyde

  Minor damage, plaster cracks.

  16 November 1985

  191115·6

  53·82

  -2·07

  18·7

  2·6

  Hebden bridge, West Yorkshire

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  18 November 1985

  134246·8

  52·02

  -0·97

  11·1

  2·5

  Buckingham, Buckinghamshire

  —

  1 December 1985

  171851·9

  57·03

  -5·77

  4·2

  3·7

  Near Mallaig, Highland

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  2 December 1985

  174032·7

  51·28

  -0·82

  4·4

  2·7

  Fleet, Hampshire

  —

  4 January 1986

  003430·2

  57·76

  -5·56

  4·2

  2·5

  Poolewe, Highland

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  30 January 1986

  103256·8

  57·00

  -5·46

  11·8

  3·0

  Loch Nevis, Highland

  Felt, no damage.

  580 581

  Date

  HrMnSecs

  Latitude

  Longitude

  Depth (km)

  Richter magnitude

  Locality

  Effects

  15 April 1986

  162448·0

  52·95

  -4·41

  23·0

  2·7

  Lleyn

  Aftershock Felt, no damage.

  21 August 1986

  112710·1

  55·85

  -3·13

  0·1

  2·5

  Rosewell, Lothian

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  2 September 1986

  144759·5

  50·11

  -5·17

  6·2

  2·9

  Constantine, Cornwall

  Minor damage, plaster cracks.

  29 September 1986

  013336·1

  56·46

  -5·50

  22·4

  4·2

  Oban, Strathclyde

  Minor damage, plaster cracks

  9 October 1986

  125527·3

  55·85

  -3·13

  0·2

  2·8

  Rosewell, Lothian

  Moderate shaking, no damage

  26 December 1986

  205008·0

  51·90

  -1·34

  23·5

  2·9

  Oxford

  23 February 1987

  020837·7

  52·94

  -2·43

  10·5

  2·6

  Market Drayton, Shropshire

  12 March 1987

  092859·0

  52·48

  -2·44

  14·0

  2·5

  Bridgnorth, Shropshire

  20 April 1987

  051852·0

  59·57

  1·78

  10·6

  2·5

  North Sea

  1 May 1987

  060952·1

  52·74

  -0·82

  10·5

  2·7

  Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire

  Moderate shaking, no damage

  3 May 1987

  224820·8

  56·68

  -6·24

  11·3

  2·5

  Mull, Highland

  4 October 1987

  022504·0

  58·37

  1·49

  2·4

  2·9

  NorthSea

  4 October 1987

  125828·3

  57·98

  -5·20

  0·4

  3·0

  Ullapool, Highland

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  4 October 1987

  172816·4

  57·97

  -5·19

  0·5

  3·0

  Ullapool, Highland

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  17 October 1987

  074438·8

  57·93

  -5·14

  2·0

  2·9

  Ullapool, Highland

  Felt, no damage.

  17 October 1987

  095407·6

  57·96

  -5·19

  4·8

  2·5

  Ullapool, Highland

  Felt, no damage.

  31 October 1987

  032934·9

  57·94

  -5·12

  0·6

  2·5

  Ullapool, Highland

  20 November 1987

  030739·3

  56·71

  -5·71

  0·5

  2·6

  Ardmamurchan, Highland

  Felt, no damage.

  5 December 1987

  102258·5

  53·49

  -1·98

  8·8

  2·6

  Manchester

  Moderate shaking, no damage.

  21 January 1988

  152807·8

  58·41

  1·49

  0·6

  3·0

  North Sea

  23 May 1988

  061334·5

  56·63

  -4·45

  8·8

  2·6

  Rannoch Moor, Tayside

  3 August 1988

  14824·1

  52·95

  1·78

  5·0

  2·9

  Southern North Sea

  8 August 1988

  195931·9

  63·68

  2·44

  20·0

  5·6

  Northern North Sea

  Felt on Shetland and Norway

  12 September 1988

  142310·6

  54·41

  -2·98

  15·0

  3·2

  Ambleside, Cumbria

  Minor damage, plaster cracks.

  12 September 1988

  142329·3

  54·40

  -3·01

  7·6

  3·0

  Ambleside, Cumbria

  Minor damage, plaster cracks.

  23 October 1988

  030155·1

  51·24

  -3·17

  17·1

  2·8

  Bridgwater, Somerset

  13 November 1988

  232050·9

  59·80

  -0·46

  29·2

  2·9

  East of Shetland

  Felt, no damage.

  10 December 1988

  100918·8

  56·09

  -5·19

  4·2

  2·7

  Loch Fyne, Strathclyde

  1989: None exceeding 2·5 Richer to date

  Qualified Teacher Status (Applications)
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications for the award of qualified teacher status had been received by the Department of Education and Science under form P6 (5) at 30 September from European Community nationals; how many applications have been approved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  At 30 September, 88 applications for the award of qualified teacher status from European Community nationals had been received. All were approved.

  Lecturers
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many lecturers in maintained further education are female hourly paid part-time employees.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information held centrally provides only the full-time equivalent of part-time further education lecturers (not their number), nor are there separate figures for men and women. However, the total full-time 582
  equivalents of hourly paid part-time lecturers employed by local education authorities in England in January 1989 was 20,243.

  PCFC Budget
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the publicly funded PCFC recurrent budget for 1989–90 is allocated at institutional level to the gross salaries, subsidised housing and fringe benefits of the chief executives of each higher education corporation, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  As I told the hon. Member in reply to his question of 22 May at column 369, the Department collects information on the gross salaries of individual directors and principals of PCFC sector institutions for the purposes of the teachers' superannuation scheme, but the release of this information would be incompatible with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1984. Information on subsidised housing and other fringe benefits for the directors and principals is not collected centrally.

  Principals (Salaries)
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the gross salaries of the principals of each of the public sector higher education institutions to incorporation on 1 April.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 22 May 1989 at column 369.

  Teachers
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications for the award of licensed teachers under form P6(1) had been received by the Department of Education and Science at 30 September; from whom the applications had been received; and how many have been granted.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Seven applications for licences had been received at 30 September. All were from Hertfordshire local education authority and all were granted.

  Lower Attaining Pupils Programme
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what account he has taken of Her Majesty's inspector's observations about the effective use of his Department's expenditure as recorded in paragraph 71 of Her Majesty's inspector's report "The Lower Attaining Pupils Programme 1982–88"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend welcomes Her Majesty's inspectorate's report on the lower attaining 584
  pupils programme (LAPP). He attaches great importance to the monitoring and evaluation of the programmes within his Department's remit, and has noted carefully t he observations made by the inspectorate about the monitoring of the LAPP. The lessons learnt from that programme are reflected in the procedures for the monitoring and evaluation of his current specific grant programmes, education support grants and the LEA training grants scheme.

  Book Provision
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding further education book provision; and if he will make a statement on provision for the next academic year.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend is aware of representations made by the Publishers Association specifically about book provision in further education. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced proposals for the distribution of local authority total standard spending for 1990–91 on 6 November. The education share of that total allows for increased spending on books and equipment in further education relative to that assumed in the comparable total for 1989–90. The actual deployment of education funding is, however, for individual LEAs and colleges to determine. The introduction of local management of colleges under the Education Reform Act will give colleges greater discretion to deploy available resources in line with their own priorities, and so to increase spending on books where they judge that appropriate.

  Schools (Capital Allocations)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list in the Official Report tables showing (a) the total amount bid for schools' capital expenditure by local education authorities, (b) the total amount allocated by his Department, and (c) the percentage of (b) over (a), broken down by (i) county and voluntary controlled schools, (ii) voluntary aided schools and (iii) all maintained schools, for each financial year from 1974–75, and in constant and current prices, and showing the percentage of each year's allocation represented by (1) basic needs and (2) reorganisations;

  (2) if he will list in the Official Report tables showing the capital allocation for each local education authority in England made by his Department for capital expenditure for (a) county and voluntary controlled schools, (b) voluntary aided schools and (c) all maintained schools, the amount of the bid in respect of each such allocation, and the percentage which each allocation bears to its respective bid, in current prices and in constant prices for each year from 1984–85 to 1989–90.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 30 October 1989]: Not all the information is available in the form requested. Each year my Department announces the level of allocations to LEAs for capital expenditure on schools and colleges.

  Table A

  Local authority capital plans and allocations

  Education capital allocation and plans at current and constant prices 1981–82 to 1989–90 1981–82

  Local education authority

  Capital plans

  Capital allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Avon

  —

  —

  2,712

  3,654

  Barking

  —

  —

  2,661

  3,585

  Barnet

  2—

  —

  5,102

  6,874

  Barnsley

  —

  —

  640

  862

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  5,011

  6,751

  Berkshire

  —

  —

  4,091

  5,512

  Bexley

  —

  —

  932

  1,256

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  7,453

  10,041

  Bolton

  —

  —

  3,095

  4,170

  Bradford

  —

  —

  5,349

  7,207

  Brent

  —

  —

  1,176

  1,584

  Bromley

  —

  —

  1,570

  2,115

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  —

  7,889

  10,629

  Bury

  —

  —

  1,707

  2,300

  Calderdale

  —

  —

  1,341

  1,807

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  6,527

  8,794

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  8,084

  10,892

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  9,458

  12,743

  Cornwall

  —

  —

  5,472

  7,372

  Coventry

  —

  —

  3,755

  5,059

  Croydon

  —

  —

  581

  783

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  2,100

  2,829

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  8,751

  11,790

  Devon

  —

  —

  9,287

  12,512

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  1,761

  2,373

  Dorset

  —

  —

  5,673

  7,643

  Dudley

  —

  —

  2,567

  3,459

  Durham

  —

  —

  2,527

  3,405

  Ealing

  —

  —

  1,465

  1,974

  East Sussex

  —

  —

  5,170

  6,966

  Enfield

  —

  —

  1,077

  1,451

  Essex

  —

  —

  10,492

  14,136

  Gateshead

  —

  —

  682

  919

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  3,187

  4,294

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  9,430

  12,705

  Haringey

  —

  —

  2,403

  3,238

  Harrow

  —

  —

  543

  732

  Havering

  —

  —

  373

  503

  Hereford and Worcester

  —

  —

  3,319

  4,472

  Hertforshire

  —

  —

  4,527

  6,099

  586
  Allocations for county and voluntary controlled schools are unhypothecated which means that specific amounts for basic need or school reorganisations are not indicated. It is therefore for each LEA to decide how its allocation should be used and LEAs can also look to receipts and to other flexibility available under the capital control system when determining their level of expenditure on education. For the years before 1984–85 the Department does not hold separate figures in respect of allocations for schools, but only combined figures for schools and further and higher education. Table A therefore shows LEA plans for expenditure on schools and colleges, the allocations given and the percentage which each allocation bears to the respective plans for the years 1981–82 to 1989–90. Prior to 1981–82, local education authorities did not receive block allocations, but were notified annually in the context of a rolling programme, of a limit on the value of building starts in the following year. The Department provides grant-aid for capital projects undertaken by the governors of voluntary aided schools, and table B shows LEA plans for such expenditure and the allocation given. Since the allocations include sums for committed expenditure on projects from earlier years, in addition to projects which figure in LEAs' and governors' plans, a percentage comparison of the two is misleading.

  Following are the tables:
  587

  Local education authority

  Capital plans

  Capital allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  1,719

  2,316

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  1,983

  2,672

  Humberside

  —

  —

  5,980

  8,057

  ILEA

  —

  —

  13,561

  18,271

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  853

  1,149

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Kent

  —

  —

  8,816

  11,878

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  —

  —

  1,315

  1,772

  Kirklees

  —

  —

  5,639

  7,597

  Knowsley

  —

  —

  653

  880

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  11,246

  15,152

  Leeds

  —

  —

  7,354

  9,908

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  9,180

  12,368

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  2,895

  3,900

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  5,967

  8,039

  Manchester

  —

  —

  4,822

  6,497

  Merton

  —

  —

  712

  959

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  —

  —

  1,998

  2,692

  Newham

  —

  —

  3,163

  4,262

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  3,876

  5,222

  North Tyneside

  —

  —

  555

  748

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  3,229

  4,350

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  7,028

  9,469

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  3,779

  5,091

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  6,756

  9,102

  Oldham

  —

  —

  1,289

  1,737

  Oxfordshire

  —

  —

  3,185

  4,291

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  545

  734

  Richmond

  —

  —

  1,320

  1,778

  Rochdale

  —

  —

  1,851

  2,494

  Rotherham

  —

  —

  1,021

  1,376

  Salford

  —

  —

  1,651

  2,224

  Sandwell

  —

  —

  1,621

  2,184

  Sefton

  —

  —

  1,250

  1,684

  Sheffield

  —

  —

  3,245

  4,372

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  3,573

  4,814

  Solihull

  —

  —

  199

  268

  Somerset

  —

  —

  2,981

  4,016

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  1,870

  2,519

  St. Helens

  —

  —

  3,652

  4,920

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  11,912

  16,049

  Stockport

  —

  —

  1,580

  2,129

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  5,646

  7,607

  Sunderland

  —

  —

  2,568

  3,460

  Surrey

  —

  —

  3,227

  4,348

  Sutton

  —

  —

  196

  264

  Tameside

  —

  —

  2,118

  2,854

  Trafford

  —

  —

  586

  790

  Wakefield

  —

  —

  4,311

  5,808

  Walsall

  —

  —

  4,620

  6,225

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  1,710

  2,304

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  1,366

  1,840

  West Sussex

  —

  —

  2,315

  3,119

  Wigan

  —

  —

  3,505

  4,722

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  2,152

  2,899

  Wirral

  —

  —

  1,541

  2,076

  Wolverhampton

  —

  —

  3,123

  4,208

  1982–83

  Capital plans

  Capital allocations

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Avon

  —

  —

  4,296

  5,405

  Barking

  —

  —

  2,391

  3,008

  Barnet

  2

  —

  2,214

  2,786

  Barnsley

  —

  —

  402

  506

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  4,142

  5,212

  Berkshire

  —

  —

  4,875

  6,134

  Bexley

  —

  —

  679

  854

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  5,976

  7,519

  Bolton

  —

  —

  2,867

  3,607

  Bradford

  —

  —

  4,447

  5,595

  Brent

  —

  —

  836

  1,052

  Bromley

  —

  —

  947

  1,192

  588 589

  Capital plans

  Capital allocations

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  —

  7,104

  8,938

  Bury

  —

  —

  638

  803

  Calderdale

  —

  —

  999

  1,257

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  5,462

  6,872

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  6,185

  7,782

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  5,669

  7,133

  Cornwall

  —

  —

  5,124

  6,447

  Coventry

  —

  —

  3,222

  4,054

  Croydon

  —

  —

  358

  450

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  1,374

  1,729

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  8,490

  10,682

  Devon

  —

  —

  7,757

  9,760

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  1,512

  1,902

  Dorset

  —

  —

  5,578

  7,018

  Dudley

  —

  —

  2,361

  2,971

  Durham

  —

  —

  2,037

  2,563

  Ealing

  —

  —

  1,817

  2,286

  East Sussex

  —

  —

  4,965

  6,247

  Enfield

  —

  —

  457

  575

  Essex

  —

  —

  7,237

  9,105

  Gateshead

  —

  —

  501

  630

  Gloucerstershire

  —

  —

  2,582

  3,249

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  9,617

  12,100

  Haringey

  —

  —

  2,071

  2,606

  Harrow

  —

  —

  337

  424

  Havering

  —

  —

  390

  491

  Hereford and Worcester

  —

  —

  2,346

  2,952

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  3,232

  4,067

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  1,685

  2,120

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  1,987

  2,500

  Humberside

  —

  —

  6,761

  8,507

  ILEA

  —

  —

  12,444

  15,657

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  475

  598

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Kent

  —

  —

  5,751

  7,236

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  —

  —

  1,982

  2,494

  Kirklees

  —

  —

  4,0146

  5,091

  Knowsley

  —

  —

  420

  528

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  8,308

  10,453

  Leeds

  —

  —

  4,826

  6,072

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  6,430

  8,090

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  3,799

  4,780

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  3,462

  4,356

  Manchester

  —

  —

  3,867

  4,866

  Merton

  —

  —

  386

  486

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  —

  —

  2,092

  2,632

  Newham

  —

  —

  2,501

  3,147

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  5,196

  6,538

  North Tyneside

  —

  —

  868

  1,092

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  2,524

  3,176

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  5,085

  6,398

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  2,291

  2,883

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  4,903

  6,169

  Oldham

  —

  —

  852

  1,072

  Oxfordshire

  —

  —

  4,273

  5,376

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  912

  1,148

  Richmond

  —

  —

  373

  469

  Rochdale

  —

  —

  1,853

  2,331

  Rotherham

  —

  —

  406

  511

  Salford

  —

  —

  1,369

  1,723

  Sandwell

  —

  —

  1,651

  2,077

  Sefton

  —

  —

  379

  477

  Sheffield

  —

  —

  2,667

  3,356

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  3,132

  3,941

  Solihul

  —

  —

  371

  467

  Somerset

  —

  —

  1,517

  1,909

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  1,668

  2,099

  St. Helens

  —

  —

  3,360

  4,228

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  8,428

  10,604

  Stockport

  —

  —

  1,384

  1,741

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  3,607

  4,538

  Sunderland

  —

  —

  2,780

  3,498

  Surrey

  —

  —

  3,884

  4,887

  Sutton

  —

  —

  157

  198

  Tameside

  —

  —

  1,526

  1,920

  Trafford

  —

  —

  404

  508

  590 591

  Capital plans

  Capital allocations

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Wakefield

  —

  —

  2,711

  3,411

  Walsall

  —

  —

  3,019

  3,799

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  1,694

  2,131

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  1,367

  1,720

  West Sussex

  —

  —

  2,306

  2,901

  Wigan

  —

  —

  2,624

  3,302

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  2,978

  3,747

  Wirral

  —

  —

  656

  825

  Wolverhampton

  —

  —

  2,471

  3,109

  1983–84

  Local education authority

  Capital plans

  Capital allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Avon

  —

  —

  5,853

  7,038

  Barking

  —

  —

  2,928

  3,521

  Barnet

  2—

  —

  1,538

  1,849

  Barnsley

  —

  —

  384

  462

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  2,437

  2,931

  Berkshire

  —

  —

  8,826

  10,613

  Bexley

  —

  —

  1,633

  1,964

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  5,220

  6,277

  Bolton

  —

  —

  2,047

  2,462

  Bradford

  —

  —

  6,969

  8,380

  Brent

  —

  —

  1,180

  1,419

  Bromley

  —

  —

  841

  1,011

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  —

  6,605

  7,943

  Bury

  —

  —

  982

  1,181

  Calderdale

  —

  —

  1,293

  1,555

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  6,370

  7,660

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  8,213

  9,876

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  4,009

  4,821

  Cornwall

  —

  —

  5,548

  6,672

  Coventry

  —

  —

  3,478

  4,182

  Croydon

  —

  —

  800

  962

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  2,618

  3,148

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  6,849

  8,236

  Devon

  —

  —

  4,817

  5,793

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  1,386

  1,667

  Dorset

  —

  —

  4,736

  5,695

  Dudley

  —

  —

  3,950

  4,750

  Durham

  —

  —

  1,711

  2,058

  Ealing

  —

  —

  693

  833

  East Sussex

  —

  —

  5,567

  6,694

  Enfield

  —

  —

  311

  374

  Essex

  —

  —

  7,357

  8,847

  Gateshead

  —

  —

  1,003

  1,206

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  2,974

  3,576

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  10,638

  12,792

  Haringey

  —

  —

  1,597

  1,920

  Harrow

  —

  —

  305

  367

  Havering

  —

  —

  299

  360

  Hereford and Worcester

  —

  —

  1,504

  1,809

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  5,473

  6,581

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  896

  1,077

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  2,611

  3,140

  Humberside

  —

  —

  7,133

  8,578

  ILEA

  —

  —

  9,683

  11,644

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  541

  651

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Kent

  —

  —

  4,821

  5,797

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  —

  —

  2,270

  2,730

  Kirklees

  —

  —

  4,102

  4,933

  Knowsley

  —

  —

  665

  800

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  11,069

  13,311

  Leeds

  —

  —

  3,381

  4,066

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  5,234

  6,294

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  3,442

  4,139

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  3,768

  4,531

  Manchester

  —

  —

  4,349

  5,230

  Merton

  —

  —

  408

  491

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  —

  —

  3,134

  3,769

  Newham

  —

  —

  2,084

  2,506

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  5,736

  6,898

  592

  593

  Local education aulhority

  Capital plans

  Capital allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  North Tyneside

  —

  —

  606

  729

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  2,703

  3,250

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  3,916

  4,709

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  1,481

  1,781

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  2,493

  2,998

  Oldham

  —

  —

  780

  938

  Oxfordshire

  —

  —

  4,014

  4,827

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  872

  1,049

  Richmond

  —

  —

  557

  670

  Rochdale

  —

  —

  1,174

  1,412

  Rotherham

  —

  —

  515

  619

  Salford

  —

  —

  1,038

  1,248

  Sandwell

  —

  —

  1,436

  1,727

  Sefton

  —

  —

  578

  695

  Sheffield

  —

  —

  3,439

  4,135

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  2,727

  3,279

  Solihull

  —

  —

  356

  428

  Somerset

  —

  —

  3,127

  3,760

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  1,181

  1,420

  St. Helens

  —

  —

  2,384

  2,867

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  7,676

  9,231

  Stockport

  —

  —

  1,067

  1,283

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  3,752

  4,512

  Sunderland

  —

  —

  2,927

  3,520

  Surrey

  —

  —

  3,733

  4,489

  Sutton

  —

  —

  266

  320

  Tameside

  —

  —

  1,871

  2,250

  Trafford

  —

  —

  693

  833

  Wakefield

  —

  —

  2,044

  2,458

  Walsall

  —

  —

  1,340

  1,611

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  1,624

  1,953

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  1,991

  2,394

  West Sussex

  —

  —

  3,705

  4,455

  Wigan

  —

  —

  2,518

  3,028

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  3,136

  3,771

  Wirral

  —

  —

  2,403

  2,890

  Wolverhampton

  —

  —

  2,269

  2,729

  1984–85

  Capital plans

  Capital allocation

  Initial

  (current prices)

  (constant prices)

  (current prices)

  (constant prices)

  Allocation as a per cent. of plans

  Avon

  11,121

  12,744

  5,270

  6,039

  47

  Barking

  695

  796

  1,442

  1,652

  207

  Barnet

  2,939

  3,368

  2,453

  2,811

  83

  Barnsley

  864

  990

  401

  460

  46

  Bedfordshire

  4,534

  5,195

  2,439

  2,795

  54

  Berkshire

  10,238

  11,732

  8,227

  9,427

  80

  Bexley

  1,399

  1,603

  845

  968

  60

  Birmingham

  9,533

  10,924

  6,484

  7,430

  68

  Bolton

  2,229

  2,554

  1,536

  1,760

  69

  Bradford

  18,220

  20,878

  6,707

  7,686

  37

  Brent

  2,576

  2,952

  1,678

  1,923

  65

  Bromley

  3,777

  4,328

  492

  564

  13

  Buckinghamshire

  18,602

  21,316

  6,854

  7,854

  37

  Bury

  1,824

  2,090

  1,030

  1,180

  56

  Calderdale

  3,408

  3,905

  1,090

  1,249

  32

  Cambridgeshire

  6,655

  7,626

  5,039

  5,774

  76

  Cheshire

  10,594

  12,140

  7,366

  8,441

  70

  Cleveland

  7,463

  8,552

  3,626

  4,155

  49

  Cornwall

  6,943

  7,956

  4,377

  5,016

  63

  Coventry

  5,188

  5,945

  2,919

  3,345

  56

  Croydon

  1,749

  2,004

  1,227

  1,406

  70

  Cumbria

  8,026

  9,197

  3,982

  4,563

  50

  Derbyshire

  9,885

  11,327

  6,546

  7,501

  66

  Devon

  9,087

  10,413

  7,832

  8,975

  86

  Doncaster

  1,778

  2,037

  1,226

  1,405

  69

  Dorset

  8,744

  10,020

  5,385

  6,171

  62

  Dudley

  5,460

  6,257

  3,516

  4,029

  64

  Durham

  4,271

  4,894

  2,054

  2,354

  48

  Ealing

  2,721

  3,118

  1,347

  1,544

  50

  East Sussex

  10,389

  11,905

  4,601

  5,272

  44

  Enfield

  901

  1,032

  576

  660

  64

  Essex

  17,675

  20,254

  6,604

  7,567

  37

  594 595

  Capital plans

  Capital allocation

  Initial Allocation as a per cent. of plans

  (current prices)

  (constant prices)

  (current prices)

  (constant prices)

  Gateshead

  3,934

  4,508

  572

  655

  15

  Gloucestershire

  6,416

  7,352

  2,772

  3,176

  43

  Hampshire

  20,652

  23,665

  9,666

  11,076

  47

  Haringey

  2,640

  3,025

  1,090

  1,249

  41

  Harrow

  2,785

  3,191

  523

  599

  19

  Havering

  894

  1,024

  216

  248

  24

  Hereford and Worcester

  3,378

  3,871

  1,669

  1,912

  49

  Hertfordshire

  5,912

  6,775

  5,479

  6,278

  93

  Hillingdon

  4,362

  4,998

  1,068

  1,224

  24

  Hounslow

  4,987

  5,715

  3,063

  3,510

  61

  Humberside

  11,677

  13,381

  6,883

  7,887

  59

  ILEA

  22,045

  25,261

  9,703

  11,119

  44

  Isle of Wight

  1,445

  1,656

  948

  1,086

  66

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  8,716

  9,988

  4,347

  4,981

  50

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  2,673

  3,063

  1,330

  1,524

  50

  Kirklees

  6,746

  7,730

  3,753

  4,301

  56

  Knowsley

  1,174

  1,345

  895

  1,026

  76

  Lancashire

  13,646

  15,637

  11,055

  12,668

  81

  Leeds

  5,184

  5,940

  2,899

  3,322

  56

  Leicestershire

  8,229

  9,430

  7,074

  8,106

  86

  Lincolnshire

  9,022

  10,338

  4,455

  5,105

  49

  Liverpool

  6,973

  7,990

  4,243

  4,862

  61

  Manchester

  11,180

  12,811

  6,997

  8,018

  63

  Merton

  2,098

  2,404

  993

  1,138

  47

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  3,600

  4,125

  2,265

  2,595

  63

  Newham

  4,232

  4,849

  2,039

  2,336

  48

  Norfolk

  7,771

  8905

  4,261

  4,883

  55

  North Tyneside

  3,673

  4,209

  721

  826

  20

  North Yorkshire

  11,725

  13,436

  5,675

  6,503

  48

  Northamptonshire

  7,059

  8,089

  4,179

  4,789

  59

  Northumberland

  2,580

  2,956

  1,002

  1,148

  39

  Nottinghamshire

  4,376

  5,014

  2,666

  3,055

  61

  Oldham

  1,778

  2,037

  968

  1,109

  54

  Oxfordshire

  4,194

  4,806

  3,245

  3,718

  77

  Redbridge

  1,971

  2,259

  1,006

  1,153

  51

  Richmond

  2,106

  2,413

  735

  842

  35

  Rochdale

  3,805

  4,360

  1,452

  1,664

  38

  Rotherham

  1,182

  1,354

  471

  540

  40

  Salford

  2,230

  2,555

  822

  942

  37

  Sandwell

  3,453

  3,957

  1,705

  1,954

  49

  Sefton

  2,334

  2,675

  824

  944

  35

  Sheffield

  5,035

  5,770

  3,007

  3,446

  60

  Shropshire

  4,359

  4,995

  2,072

  2,374

  48

  Solihull

  708

  811

  723

  828

  102

  Somerset

  3,367

  3,858

  2,559

  2,932

  76

  South Tyneside

  3,765

  4,314

  1,280

  1,467

  34

  St. Helens

  3,031

  3,473

  2,111

  2,419

  70

  Staffordshire

  15,277

  17,506

  10,691

  12,251

  70

  Stockport

  1,540

  1,765

  1,770

  2,028

  115

  Suffolk

  5,554

  6,364

  4,348

  4,982

  78

  Sunderland

  4,354

  4,989

  2,862

  3,280

  66

  Surrey

  8,416

  9,644

  4,340

  4,973

  52

  Sutton

  1,011

  1,159

  451

  517

  45

  Tameside

  3,116

  3,571

  1,690

  1,937

  54

  Trafford

  1,631

  1,869

  1,027

  1,177

  63

  Wakefield

  3,993

  4,576

  1,596

  1,829

  40

  Walsall

  4,116

  4,717

  1,026

  1,176

  25

  Waltham Forest

  2,613

  2,994

  889

  1,019

  34

  Warwickshire

  2,781

  3,187

  1,428

  1,636

  51

  West Sussex

  6,544

  7,499

  5,027

  5,760

  77

  Wigan

  3,041

  3,485

  2,004

  2,296

  66

  Wiltshire

  6,771

  7,759

  3,810

  4,366

  56

  Wirral

  4,114

  4,714

  2,117

  2,426

  51

  Wolverhampton

  3,890

  4,458

  2,375

  2,722

  61

  596 597

  1985–86

  Capital plans

  Capital allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Initial allocation as a percentage of plans

  Avon

  10,965

  11,910

  3,951

  4,292

  36

  Barking

  1,579

  1,715

  947

  1,029

  60

  Barnet

  5,825

  6,327

  2,612

  2,837

  45

  Barnsley

  1,226

  1,332

  1,090

  1,184

  89

  Bedfordshire

  5,427

  5,895

  1,625

  1,765

  30

  Berkshire

  11,584

  12,582

  7,490

  8,136

  65

  Bexley

  1,396

  1,516

  504

  547

  36

  Birmingham

  6,569

  7,135

  3,695

  4,013

  56

  Bolton

  1,317

  1,431

  570

  619

  43

  Bradford

  13,383

  14,536

  8,269

  8,982

  62

  Brent

  4,619

  5,017

  891

  968

  19

  Bromley

  4,518

  4,907

  628

  682

  14

  Buckinghamshire

  12,649

  13,739

  5,978

  6,493

  47

  Bury

  1,507

  1,637

  803

  872

  53

  Calderdale

  2,305

  2,504

  830

  902

  36

  Cambridgeshire

  6,506

  7,067

  4,387

  4,765

  67

  Cheshire

  9,518

  10,338

  5,005

  5,436

  53

  Cleveland

  7,482

  8,127

  4,493

  4,880

  60

  Cornwall

  4,523

  4,913

  3,319

  3,605

  73

  Coventry

  7,419

  8,058

  3,094

  3,361

  42

  Croydon

  3,626

  3,939

  2,170

  2,357

  60

  Cumbria

  5,254

  5,707

  3,803

  4,131

  72

  Derbyshire

  10,794

  11,724

  7,239

  7,863

  67

  Devon

  11,046

  11,998

  6,405

  6,957

  58

  Doncaster

  1,353

  1,470

  424

  461

  31

  Dorset

  8,666

  9,413

  5,265

  5,719

  61

  Dudley

  7,016

  7,621

  2,671

  2,901

  38

  Durham

  6,415

  6,968

  2,995

  3,253

  47

  Ealing

  3,352

  3,641

  2,451

  2,662

  73

  East Sussex

  7,993

  8,682

  4,870

  5,290

  61

  Enfield

  1,375

  1,494

  966

  1,049

  70

  Essex

  28,705

  31,179

  11,679

  12,686

  41

  Gateshead

  3,714

  4,034

  1,122

  1,219

  30

  Gloucestershire

  7,261

  7,887

  4,652

  5,053

  64

  Hampshire

  23,877

  25,935

  11,844

  12,865

  50

  Haringey

  3,644

  3,958

  895

  972

  25

  Harrow

  3,007

  3,266

  299

  325

  10

  Havering

  1,013

  1,100

  334

  363

  33

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,688

  2,920

  1,480

  1,608

  55

  Hertfordshire

  8,417

  9,142

  5,960

  6,474

  71

  Hillingdon

  2,368

  2,572

  521

  566

  22

  Hounslow

  4,638

  5,038

  1,566

  1,701

  34

  Humberside

  7,400

  8,038

  4,138

  4,495

  56

  ILEA

  27,686

  30,072

  15,080

  16,380

  54

  Isle of Wight

  2,125

  2,308

  1,230

  1,336

  58

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  9,481

  10,298

  5,209

  5,658

  55

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  4,070

  4,421

  2,131

  2,315

  52

  Kirklees

  6,955

  7,554

  3,304

  3,589

  48

  Knowsley

  1,986

  2,157

  973

  1,057

  49

  Lancashire

  20,050

  21,778

  15,156

  16,462

  76

  Leeds

  9,301

  10,103

  3,325

  3,612

  36

  Leicestershire

  12,299

  13,359

  6,718

  7,297

  55

  Lincolnshire

  8,834

  9,595

  3,532

  3,836

  40

  Liverpool

  8,461

  9,190

  4,870

  5,290

  58

  Manchester

  17,545

  19.057

  7,450

  8,092

  42

  Merton

  4,226

  4,590

  2,277

  2,473

  54

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  3,948

  4,288

  1,716

  1,864

  43

  Newham

  7,672

  8,333

  2,558

  2,778

  33

  Norfolk

  6,698

  7,275

  3,070

  3,335

  46

  North Tyneside

  4,300

  4,671

  2,235

  2,428

  52

  North Yorkshire

  6,625

  7,196

  3,798

  4,125

  57

  Northamptonshire

  6,268

  6,808

  4,492

  4,879

  72

  Northumberland

  2,322

  2,522

  1,254

  1,362

  54

  Nottinghamshire

  4,810

  5,225

  3,421

  3,716

  71

  Oldham

  2,650

  2,878

  1,014

  1,101

  38

  Oxfordshire

  9,134

  9,921

  3,650

  3,965

  40

  Redbridge

  1,738

  1,888

  1,330

  1,445

  77

  Richmond

  752

  817

  379

  412

  50

  Rochdale

  2,885

  3,134

  1,802

  1,957

  62

  Rotherham

  1,751

  1,902

  481

  522

  27

  Salford

  2,891

  3,140

  1551

  1,685

  54

  Sandwell

  4,429

  4,811

  1,914

  2,079

  43

  598

  599

  Capital plans

  Capital allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Initial allocation as a percentage of plans

  Sefton

  2,060

  2,238

  1,671

  1,815

  81

  Sheffield

  8,044

  8,737

  3,497

  3,798

  43

  Shropshire

  5,680

  6,170

  3,924

  4,262

  69

  Solihull

  1,297

  1,409

  642

  697

  49

  Somerset

  2,941

  3,194

  1,243

  1,350

  42

  South Tyneside

  2,851

  3,097

  1,339

  1,454

  47

  St. Helens

  3,190

  3,465

  1,827

  1,984

  57

  Staffordshire

  13,621

  14,795

  9,717

  10,554

  71

  Stockport

  2,691

  2,923

  1,411

  1,533

  52

  Suffolk

  6,505

  7,066

  3,871

  4,205

  60

  Sunderland

  4,679

  5,082

  3,047

  3,310

  65

  Surrey

  9,717

  10,554

  4,365

  4,741

  45

  Sutton

  966

  1,049

  474

  515

  49

  Tameside

  1,360

  1,477

  532

  578

  39

  Trafford

  3,208

  3,484

  1,594

  1,731

  50

  Wakefield

  3,307

  3,592

  1,438

  1,562

  43

  Walsall

  3,222

  3,500

  1,329

  1,444

  41

  Waltham Forest

  2,334

  2,535

  985

  1,070

  42

  Warwickshire

  3,105

  3,373

  1,703

  1,850

  55

  West Sussex

  5,641

  6,127

  3,429

  3,725

  61

  Wigan

  3,990

  4,334

  1,464

  1,590

  37

  Wiltshire

  6,314

  6,858

  3,478

  3,778

  55

  Wirral

  2,585

  2,808

  766

  832

  30

  Wolverhampton

  3,793

  4,120

  2,047

  2,223

  54

  1986–87

  Capital plans

  Capital allocation

  Initial allocation as a percentage of plans

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Avon

  10,821

  11,388

  4,070

  4,283

  38

  Barking

  3,717

  3,912

  1,135

  1,195

  31

  Barnet

  7,399

  7,787

  1,621

  1,706

  22

  Barnsley

  1,054

  1,109

  577

  607

  55

  Bedfordshire

  6,282

  6,611

  1,934

  2,035

  31

  Berkshire

  10,696

  11,257

  5,399

  5,682

  50

  Bexley

  2,096

  2,206

  715

  752

  34

  Birmingham

  9,015

  9,488

  5,016

  5,279

  56

  Bolton

  1,692

  1,781

  576

  606

  34

  Bradford

  10,116

  10,646

  7,061

  7,431

  70

  Brent

  4,797

  5,049

  1,589

  1,672

  33

  Bromley

  3,357

  3,533

  1,747

  1,839

  52

  Buckinghamshire

  15,970

  16,807

  5,582

  5,875

  35

  Bury

  995

  1,047

  882

  928

  89

  Calderdale

  1,708

  1,798

  1,203

  1,266

  70

  Cambridgeshire

  4,910

  5,167

  2,591

  2,727

  53

  Cheshire

  11,327

  11,921

  3,837

  4,038

  34

  Cleveland

  12,605

  13,266

  4,933

  5,192

  39

  Cornwall

  7,583

  7,981

  3,592

  3,780

  47

  Coventry

  15,286

  16,087

  5,396

  5,679

  35

  Croydon

  3,519

  3,704

  2,784

  2,930

  79

  Cumbria

  5,640

  5,936

  2,254

  2,372

  40

  Derbyshire

  13,942

  14,673

  7,202

  7,580

  52

  Devon

  16,957

  17,846

  8,418

  8,859

  50

  Doncaster

  771

  811

  338

  356

  44

  Dorset

  8,255

  8,688

  3,377

  3,554

  41

  Dudley

  6,703

  7,054

  2,012

  2,117

  30

  Durham

  6,264

  6,592

  2,231

  2,348

  36

  Ealing

  5,702

  6,001

  2,154

  2,267

  38

  East Sussex

  10,176

  10,710

  3,786

  3,985

  37

  Enfield

  1,698

  1,787

  706

  743

  42

  Essex

  31,384

  33,030

  11,417

  12,016

  36

  Gateshead

  4,968

  5,228

  1,451

  1,527

  29

  Gloucestershire

  10,306

  10,846

  6,561

  6,905

  64

  Hampshire

  29,354

  30,893

  12,905

  13,582

  44

  Haringey

  4,455

  4,689

  797

  839

  18

  Harrow

  5,315

  5,594

  4,078

  4,292

  77

  Havering

  1,074

  1,130

  395

  416

  37

  Hereford and Worcester

  3,911

  4,116

  1,929

  2,030

  49

  Hertfordshire

  10,968

  11,543

  4,677

  4,922

  43

  Hillingdon

  1,806

  1,901

  306

  322

  17

  Hounslow

  4,783

  5,034

  668

  703

  14

  600

  601

  Capital plans

  Capital allocation

  Initial allocation as a percentage of plans

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Humberside

  10,802

  11,368

  7,524

  7,918

  70

  ILEA

  29,331

  30,869

  12,575

  13,234

  43

  Isle of Wight

  2,270

  2,389

  1,139

  1,199

  50

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  9,801

  10,315

  6,405

  6,741

  65

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  6,445

  6,783

  1,806

  1,901

  28

  Kirklees

  7,548

  7,944

  1,956

  2,059

  26

  Knowsley

  2,750

  2,894

  1,483

  1,561

  54

  Lancashire

  21,743

  22,883

  12,538

  13,195

  58

  Leeds

  8,557

  9,006

  2,634

  2,772

  31

  Leicestershire

  12,311

  12,956

  7,061

  7,431

  57

  Lincolnshire

  6,044

  6,361

  3,908

  4,113

  65

  Liverpool

  7,878

  8,291

  2,904

  3,056

  37

  Manchester

  21,998

  23,151

  6,501

  6,842

  30

  Merton

  3,959

  4,167

  1,203

  1,266

  30

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  8,641

  9,094

  2,586

  2,722

  30

  Newham

  6,825

  7,183

  1,271

  1,338

  19

  Norfolk

  7,004

  7,371

  4,394

  4,624

  63

  North Tyneside

  3,210

  3,378

  1,536

  1,617

  48

  North Yorkshire

  5,576

  5,868

  2,504

  2,635

  45

  Northamptonshire

  7,536

  7,931

  4,339

  4,567

  58

  Northumberland

  2,687

  2,828

  1,003

  1,056

  37

  Nottinghamshire

  5,847

  6,154

  3,043

  3,203

  52

  Oldham

  2,910

  3,063

  1,428

  1,503

  49

  Oxfordshire

  13,423

  14,127

  2,055

  2,163

  15

  Redbridge

  2,167

  2,281

  1,149

  1,209

  53

  Richmond

  1,050

  1,105

  249

  262

  24

  Rochdale

  4,545

  4,783

  2,163

  2,276

  48

  Rotherham

  1,651

  1,738

  578

  608

  35

  Salford

  3,382

  3,559

  1,625

  1,710

  48

  Sandwell

  4,091

  4,306

  1,203

  1,266

  29

  Sefton

  3,983

  4,192

  2,667

  2,807

  67

  Sheffield

  7,890

  8,304

  2,330

  2,452

  30

  Shropshire

  5,277

  5,554

  2,602

  2,738

  49

  Solihull

  2,666

  2,806

  1,295

  1,363

  49

  Somerset

  6,832

  7,190

  2,014

  2,120

  29

  South Tyneside

  2,911

  3,064

  732

  770

  25

  St. Helens

  2,325

  2,447

  772

  812

  33

  Staffordshire

  17,517

  18,435

  9,313

  9,801

  53

  Stockport

  3,702

  3,896

  1,453

  1,529

  39

  Suffolk

  8,619

  9,071

  5,866

  6,174

  68

  Sunderland

  7,188

  7,565

  1,928

  2,029

  27

  Surrey

  11,030

  11,608

  3,610

  3,799

  33

  Sutton

  1,318

  1,387

  329

  346

  25

  Tameside

  1,685

  1,773

  306

  322

  18

  Trafford

  2,702

  2,844

  1,276

  1,343

  47

  Wakefield

  3,284

  3,456

  1,990

  2,094

  61

  Walsall

  3,711

  3,906

  1,119

  1,178

  30

  Waltham Forest

  3,962

  4,170

  2,184

  2,299

  55

  Warwickshire

  2,993

  3,150

  1,236

  1,301

  41

  West Sussex

  6,116

  6,437

  2,157

  2,270

  35

  Wigan

  3,243

  3,413

  2,339

  2,462

  72

  Wiltshire

  4,556

  4,795

  1,983

  2,087

  44

  Wirral

  2,824

  2,972

  1,402

  1,476

  50

  Wolverhampton

  6,664

  7,013

  1,418

  1,492

  21

  1987–88

  Capital plans

  Capital allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Initial allocation as a percentage of plans

  Avon

  10,865

  10,865

  4,386

  4,386

  40

  Barking

  2,126

  2,126

  806

  806

  38

  Barnet

  11,234

  11,234

  1,744

  1,744

  16

  Barnsley

  1,073

  1,073

  530

  530

  49

  Bedfordshire

  4,814

  4,814

  1,248

  1,284

  26

  Berkshire

  8,281

  8,281

  3,597

  3,597

  43

  Bexley

  2,692

  2,692

  1,641

  1,641

  61

  Birmingham

  11,141

  11,141

  3,860

  3,860

  35

  Bolton

  1,934

  1,934

  645

  645

  33

  Bradford

  24,853

  24,853

  6,303

  6,303

  25

  Brent

  8,249

  8,249

  2,514

  2,514

  30

  602

  603

  Capital plans

  Capital allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Initial allocalion as a percentage of plans

  Bromley

  3,283

  3,283

  1,618

  1,618

  49

  Buckinghamshire

  10,384

  10,384

  6,004

  6,004

  58

  Bury

  996

  996

  320

  320

  32

  Calderdale

  3,381

  3,381

  1,883

  1,883

  56

  Cambridgeshire

  10,016

  10,016

  3,399

  3,399

  34

  Cheshire

  9,420

  9,420

  5,043

  5,043

  54

  Cleveland

  8,539

  8,539

  4,351

  4,351

  51

  Cornwall

  8,061

  8,061

  5,645

  5,645

  70

  Coventry

  12,364

  12,364

  5,709

  5,709

  46

  Croydon

  5,305

  5,305

  2,428

  2,428

  46

  Cumbria

  6,224

  6,224

  2,852

  2,852

  46

  Derbyshire

  20,028

  20,028

  9,036

  9,036

  45

  Devon

  11,291

  11,291

  4,734

  4,734

  42

  Doncaster

  403

  403

  365

  365

  91

  Dorset

  9,577

  9,577

  4,349

  4,349

  45

  Dudley

  5,067

  5,067

  1,329

  1,329

  26

  Durham

  6,263

  6,263

  1,371

  1,371

  22

  Ealing

  7,624

  7,624

  2,147

  2,147

  28

  East Sussex

  15,038

  15,038

  4,884

  4,884

  32

  Enfield

  2,980

  2,980

  1,222

  1,222

  41

  Essex

  34,169

  34,169

  11,600

  11,600

  34

  Gateshead

  4,073

  4,073

  1,112

  1,112

  27

  Gloucestershire

  10,302

  10,302

  7,167

  7,167

  70

  Hampshire

  28,643

  28,643

  10,918

  10,918

  38

  Haringey

  8,427

  8,427

  1,121

  1,121

  13

  Harrow

  5,525

  5,525

  2,925

  2,952

  53

  Havering

  1,093

  1,093

  393

  393

  36

  Hereford and Worcester

  5,633

  5,633

  2,585

  2,585

  46

  Hertfordshire

  14,293

  14,293

  4,100

  4,100

  29

  Hillingdon

  3,782

  3,782

  1,059

  1,059

  28

  Hounslow

  5,259

  5,259

  1,255

  1,255

  24

  Humberside

  14,865

  14,865

  10,753

  10,753

  72

  ILEA

  44,342

  44,342

  14,957

  14,957

  34

  Isle of Wight

  3,192

  3,192

  1,375

  1,375

  43

  Isles of Scilly

  60

  60

  30

  30

  50

  Kent

  13,345

  13,345

  7,514

  7,514

  56

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  9,674

  9,674

  1,683

  1,683

  17

  Kirklees

  8,782

  8,782

  1,664

  1,664

  19

  Knowsley

  5,510

  5,510

  1,108

  1,108

  20

  Lancashire

  18,800

  18,800

  5,994

  5,994

  32

  Leeds

  12,502

  12,502

  2,802

  2,802

  22

  Leicestershire

  13,336

  13,336

  5,526

  5,26

  41

  Lincolnshire

  7,745

  7,745

  4,625

  4,625

  60

  Liverpool

  10,072

  10,072

  1,885

  1,885

  19

  Manchester

  32,669

  32,669

  8,968

  8,968

  27

  Merton

  2,390

  2,390

  1,054

  1,054

  44

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  9,479

  9,479

  3,369

  3,369

  36

  Newham

  5,000

  5,000

  1,165

  1,165

  23

  Norfolk

  7,864

  7,864

  5,019

  5,019

  64

  North Tyneside

  4,498

  4,498

  1,935

  1,935

  43

  North Yorkshire

  5,150

  5,150

  2,035

  2,035

  40

  Northamptonshire

  5,132

  5,132

  1,726

  1,726

  34

  Northumberland

  2,060

  2,060

  655

  655

  32

  Nottinghamshire

  5,512

  5,512

  2,379

  2,379

  43

  Oldham

  4,809

  4,809

  2,799

  2,799

  58

  Oxfordshire

  11,326

  11,326

  1,942

  1,942

  17

  Redbridge

  2,935

  2,935

  1,761

  1,761

  60

  Richmond

  1,275

  1,275

  115

  115

  9

  Rochdale

  5,493

  5,493

  2,220

  2,220

  40

  Rotherham

  2,336

  2,336

  287

  287

  12

  Salford

  3,016

  3,016

  1,882

  1,882

  62

  Sandwell

  2,955

  2,955

  576

  576

  19

  Sefton

  4,616

  4,616

  1,790

  1,790

  39

  Sheffield

  10,762

  10,762

  3,179

  3,179

  30

  Shropshire

  8,486

  8,486

  5,257

  5,257

  62

  Solihull

  1,778

  1,778

  500

  500

  28

  Somerset

  6,220

  6,220

  2,626

  2,626

  42

  South Tyneside

  5,12

  5,121

  1,932

  1,932

  38

  St. Helens

  4,953

  4,953

  855

  855

  17

  Staffordshire

  18,219

  18,219

  7,591

  7,591

  42

  Stockport

  4,004

  4,004

  1,243

  1,243

  31

  Suffolk

  8,830

  8,830

  6,683

  6,683

  76

  Sunderland

  13,391

  13,391

  2,305

  2,305

  17

  Surrey

  9,339

  9,339

  3,828

  3,828

  41

  604

  605

  Capital plans

  Capital allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Initial allocation as a percentage of plans

  Sutton

  1,966

  1,966

  247

  247

  13

  Tameside

  1,884

  1,884

  389

  389

  21

  Trafford

  2,947

  2,947

  1,064

  1,064

  36

  Wakefield

  5,210

  5,210

  2,074

  2,074

  40

  Walsall

  2,483

  2,483

  824

  824

  33

  Waltham Forest

  5,276

  5,276

  2,585

  2,585

  49

  Warwickshire

  3,473

  3,473

  1,101

  1,101

  32

  West Sussex

  7,420

  7,420

  1,739

  1,739

  23

  Wigan

  4,550

  4,550

  2,717

  2,717

  60

  Wiltshire

  7,021

  7,021

  3,177

  3,177

  45

  Wirral

  4,826

  4,826

  1,316

  1,316

  27

  Wolverhampton

  7,088

  7,088

  1,932

  1,932

  27

  1988–89

  Capital plans

  Capital allocation

  Initial allocation as a percentage of plans

  current prices

  constant prices

  current prices

  constant prices

  Avon

  10,993

  10,245

  4,277

  3,986

  39

  Barking

  10,457

  9,746

  1,639

  1,528

  16

  Barnet

  11,192

  10,431

  2,000

  1,864

  18

  Barnsley

  1,198

  1,117

  342

  319

  29

  Bedfordshire

  5,660

  5,275

  1,630

  1,519

  29

  Berkshire

  12,603

  11,746

  5,567

  5,188

  44

  Bexley

  1,748

  1,638

  1,234

  1,150

  70

  Birmingham

  11,472

  10,692

  4,407

  4,107

  38

  Bolton

  3,866

  3,603

  1,212

  1,130

  31

  Bradford

  33,604

  31,318

  10,457

  9,746

  31

  Brent

  6,758

  6,298

  2,532

  2,360

  37

  Bromley

  6,098

  5,683

  403

  376

  7

  Buckinghamshire

  9,013

  8,400

  6,152

  5,734

  68

  Bury

  1,282

  1,195

  467

  435

  36

  Calderdale

  5,486

  5,113

  3,619

  3,373

  66

  Cambridgeshire

  13,719

  12,786

  4,314

  4,021

  31

  Cheshire

  10,812

  10,077

  4,829

  4,501

  45

  Cleveland

  7,104

  6,621

  3,673

  3,423

  52

  Cornwall

  9,744

  9081

  6,413

  5,977

  66

  Coventry

  17,980

  16,757

  6,155

  5,736

  34

  Croydon

  7,149

  6,663

  1,595

  1,487

  22

  Cumbria

  6,530

  6,086

  4,858

  4,528

  74

  Derbyshire

  15,025

  14,003

  10,777

  10,044

  72

  Devon

  10,732

  10,002

  6,262

  5,836

  58

  Doncaster

  644

  600

  421

  392

  65

  Dorset

  8,459

  7,884

  4,052

  3,776

  48

  Dudley

  7,773

  7,244

  1,555

  1,449

  20

  Durham

  5,451

  4,080

  1,415

  1,319

  26

  Ealing

  9,053

  8,437

  1,174

  1,094

  13

  East Sussex

  25,962

  24,196

  9,815

  9,147

  38

  Enfield

  9,504

  8,858

  1,318

  1,228

  14

  Essex

  37,264

  34,729

  20,317

  18,935

  55

  Gateshead

  5,420

  5,051

  1,933

  1,802

  36

  Gloucestershire

  9,864

  9,193

  5,302

  4,941

  54

  Hampshire

  38,619

  35,992

  16,550

  15,424

  43

  Haringey

  11,042

  10,291

  2,330

  2,172

  21

  Harrow

  3,862

  3,599

  1,643

  1,531

  43

  Havering

  1,962

  1,829

  692

  645

  35

  Hereford and Worcester

  9,032

  8,418

  2,892

  2,695

  32

  Hertfordshire

  18,887

  17,602

  5,525

  5,149

  29

  Hillingdon

  6,307

  5,878

  918

  856

  15

  Hounslow

  4,860

  4,529

  1,242

  1,158

  26

  Humberside

  13,333

  12,426

  7,077

  6,596

  53

  ILEA

  54,545

  50,835

  17,767

  16,559

  33

  Isle of Wight

  4,377

  4,079

  1,663

  1,550

  38

  Isles of Scilly

  405

  377

  39

  36

  10

  Kent

  15,217

  14,182

  7,134

  6,649

  47

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  11,731

  10,933

  1,695

  1,580

  14

  Kirklees

  9,078

  8,461

  1,486

  1,385

  16

  Knowsley

  4,815

  4,488

  1,136

  1,059

  24

  Lancashire

  25,419

  23,690

  12,809

  11,938

  50

  Leeds

  14,280

  13,309

  4,626

  4,311

  32

  Leicestershire

  15,643

  14,579

  7,419

  6,914

  47

  Lincolnshire

  8,891

  8,286

  3,897

  3,632

  44

  606

  607

  Capital plans

  Capital allocation

  Initial allocation as a percentage of plans

  current prices

  constant prices

  current prices

  constant prices

  Liverpool

  7,692

  7,169

  2,323

  2,165

  30

  Manchester

  34,860

  32,489

  9,269

  8,639

  27

  Merton

  6,965

  6,491

  1,023

  953

  15

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  12,946

  12,065

  3,917

  3,651

  30

  Newham

  6,316

  5,886

  3,061

  2,853

  48

  Norfolk

  7,938

  7,398

  4,021

  3,748

  51

  North Tyneside

  4,587

  4,275

  2,129

  1,984

  46

  North Yorkshire

  7,297

  6,801

  3,937

  3,669

  54

  Northamptonshire

  8,571

  7,988

  3,190

  2,973

  37

  Northumberland

  3,554

  3,312

  955

  890

  27

  Nottinghamshire

  4,709

  4,389

  2,461

  2,294

  52

  Oldham

  5,793

  5,399

  2,822

  2,630

  49

  Oxfordshire

  18,701

  17,429

  4,673

  4,355

  25

  Redbridge

  5,418

  5,049

  3,719

  3,466

  69

  Richmond

  2,210

  2,060

  277

  258

  13

  Rochdale

  5,654

  5,269

  1,440

  1,342

  25

  Rotherham

  2,184

  2,035

  699

  651

  32

  Salford

  5,740

  5,350

  3,430

  3,197

  60

  Sandwell

  3,710

  3,458

  767

  715

  21

  Sefton

  2,778

  2,589

  1,450

  1,351

  52

  Sheffield

  17,815

  16,603

  7,189

  6,700

  40

  Shropshire

  8,474

  7,898

  4,465

  4,161

  53

  Solihull

  4,890

  4,557

  700

  652

  14

  Somerset

  6,501

  6,059

  2,764

  2,576

  43

  South Tyneside

  5,939

  5,535

  2,527

  2,355

  43

  St. Helens

  5,685

  5,298

  1,211

  1,129

  21

  Staffordshire

  15,494

  14,440

  7,469

  6,961

  48

  Stockport

  3,891

  3,626

  2,878

  2,682

  74

  Suffolk

  9,448

  8,805

  7,014

  6,537

  74

  Sunderland

  10,951

  10,206

  4,583

  4,271

  42

  Surrey

  15,468

  14,416

  4,859

  4,529

  31

  Sutton

  6,063

  5,651

  627

  584

  10

  Tameside

  2,781

  2,592

  716

  667

  26

  Trafford

  2,637

  2,458

  471

  439

  18

  Wakefield

  6,397

  5,962

  3,573

  3,330

  56

  Walsall

  2,210

  2,060

  907

  845

  41

  Waltham Forest

  7,120

  6,636

  5,498

  5,124

  77

  Warwickshire

  4,069

  3,792

  1,375

  1,281

  34

  West Sussex

  10,851

  10,113

  3,053

  2,845

  28

  Wigan

  5,308

  4,947

  3,508

  3,269

  66

  Wiltshire

  6,867

  6,400

  3,215

  2,996

  47

  Wirral

  6,391

  5,956

  2,330

  2,172

  36

  Wolverhampton

  7,823

  7,291

  1,849

  1,723

  24

  1989–90

  Capital Plans

  Capital Allocation

  Initial Allocation as a percentage of plans

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Avon

  12,427

  10,978

  3,877

  3,425

  31

  Barking

  1,429

  1,262

  245

  216

  17

  Barnet

  5,954

  5,260

  996

  880

  17

  Barnsley

  1,665

  1,471

  270

  239

  16

  Bedfordshire

  6,120

  5,406

  2,022

  1,786

  33

  Berkshire

  13,676

  12,081

  5,876

  5,191

  43

  Bexley

  3,336

  2,947

  864

  763

  26

  Birmingham

  13,206

  11,666

  5,218

  4,610

  40

  Bolton

  4,208

  3,717

  1,286

  1,136

  31

  Bradford

  27,879

  24,628

  8,334

  7,362

  30

  Brent

  4,939

  4,363

  463

  409

  9

  Bromley

  6,338

  5,599

  663

  586

  10

  Buckinghamshire

  12,370

  10,928

  7,780

  6,873

  63

  Bury

  1,055

  932

  605

  534

  57

  Calderdale

  4,135

  3,653

  2,607

  2,303

  63

  Cambridgeshire

  21,003

  18,554

  5,801

  5,125

  28

  Cheshire

  12,507

  11,049

  3,487

  3,080

  28

  Cleveland

  7,450

  6,581

  5,324

  4,703

  71

  Cornwall

  11,803

  10,427

  6,129

  5,414

  52

  Coventry

  15,815

  13,971

  2,670

  2,359

  17

  Croydon

  6,487

  5,731

  1,008

  890

  16

  Cumbria

  10,156

  8,972

  6,753

  5,966

  66

  Derbyshire

  22,530

  19,903

  11,669

  10,308

  52

  Devon

  23,329

  20,609

  14,177

  12,524

  61

  608

  609

  Capital Plans

  Capital Allocation

  Initial Allocation as a percentage of plans

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Doncaster

  1,059

  936

  684

  604

  65

  Dorset

  11,083

  9,791

  2,970

  2,624

  27

  Dudley

  5,621

  4,966

  2,531

  2,236

  45

  Durham

  14,756

  13,035

  2,133

  1,884

  14

  Ealing

  10,487

  9,264

  540

  477

  5

  East Sussex

  25,515

  22,540

  9,171

  8,102

  36

  Enfield

  6,847

  6,049

  1,153

  1,019

  17

  Essex

  54,816

  48,424

  17,002

  15,020

  31

  Gateshead

  5,263

  4,649

  1,052

  929

  20

  Gloucestershire

  14,180

  12,527

  5,934

  5,242

  42

  Hampshire

  28,586

  25,253

  7,940

  7,014

  28

  Haringey

  6,237

  5,510

  2,275

  2,010

  36

  Harrow

  7,423

  6,557

  650

  574

  9

  Havering

  4,912

  4,339

  1,341

  1,185

  27

  Hereford and Worcester

  9,134

  8,069

  2,534

  2,239

  28

  Hertfordshire

  16,561

  14,630

  4,832

  4,269

  29

  Hillingdon

  5,132

  4,534

  644

  569

  13

  Hounslow

  8,173

  7,220

  529

  467

  6

  Humberside

  13,240

  11,696

  7,288

  6,438

  55

  ILEA

  38,931

  34,392

  11,957

  10,563

  31

  Isle of Wight

  6,678

  5,899

  1,628

  1,438

  24

  Isles of Scilly

  149

  132

  149

  132

  100

  Kent

  24,492

  21,636

  8,610

  7,606

  35

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  9,756

  8,618

  316

  279

  3

  Kirklees

  5,406

  4,776

  808

  714

  15

  Knowsley

  6,413

  5,665

  2,116

  1,869

  33

  Lancashire

  34,170

  30,186

  13,664

  12,071

  40

  Leeds

  17,367

  15,342

  3,464

  3,060

  20

  Leicestershire

  12,785

  11,294

  6,769

  5,980

  53

  Lincolnshire

  8,599

  7,596

  3,010

  1,659

  35

  Liverpool

  6,121

  5,407

  607

  536

  10

  Manchester

  26,053

  23,015

  5,271

  4,656

  20

  Merton

  11,393

  10,065

  5,243

  4,632

  46

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  9,148

  8,081

  1,566

  1,383

  17

  Newham

  7,944

  7,018

  3,590

  3,171

  45

  Norfolk

  10,892

  9,622

  3,788

  3,346

  35

  North Tyneside

  5,853

  5,171

  1,577

  1,393

  27

  North Yorkshire

  6,899

  6,095

  2,209

  1,951

  32

  Northamptonshire

  9,049

  7,994

  4,046

  3,574

  45

  Northumberland

  5,234

  4,624

  889

  785

  17

  Nottinghamshire

  7,408

  6,544

  3,215

  2,840

  43

  Oldham

  6,654

  5,878

  2,272

  2,007

  34

  Oxfordshire

  15,971

  14,109

  3,758

  3,320

  24

  Redbridge

  5,241

  4,630

  2,028

  1,792

  39

  Richmond

  2,826

  2,496

  540

  477

  19

  Rochdale

  7,094

  6,267

  2,175

  1,921

  31

  Rotherham

  2,647

  2,338

  840

  742

  32

  Salford

  5,717

  5,050

  3,806

  3,362

  67

  Sandwell

  4,462

  3,942

  2,080

  1,837

  47

  Sefton

  4,728

  4,177

  1,724

  1,523

  36

  Sheffield

  9,204

  8,131

  5,211

  4,603

  57

  Shropshire

  8,010

  7,076

  4,943

  4,367

  62

  Solihull

  4,084

  3,608

  744

  657

  18

  Somerset

  15,865

  14,015

  3,088

  2,728

  19

  South Tyneside

  9,846

  8,698

  3,372

  2,979

  34

  St. Helens

  4,597

  4,061

  1,851

  1,635

  40

  Staffordshire

  11,544

  10,198

  4,927

  4,353

  43

  Stockport

  3,822

  3,376

  1,519

  1,342

  40

  Suffolk

  13,315

  11,762

  6,086

  5,376

  46

  Sunderland

  10,269

  9,072

  3,859

  3,409

  38

  Surrey

  12,460

  11,007

  5,735

  5,066

  46

  Sutton

  11,995

  10,596

  649

  573

  5

  Tameside

  2,863

  2,529

  746

  659

  26

  Trafford

  20,581

  18,181

  2,671

  2,360

  13

  Wakefield

  5,296

  4,678

  3,212

  2,837

  61

  Walsall

  3,190

  2,818

  921

  814

  29

  Waltham Forest

  13,259

  11,713

  8,013

  7,079

  60

  Warwickshire

  6,275

  5,543

  1,729

  1,527

  28

  West Sussex

  12,953

  11,443

  1,966

  1,737

  15

  Wigan

  7,057

  6,234

  1,364

  1,205

  19

  Wiltshire

  10,455

  9,236

  2,866

  2,532

  27

  Wirral

  6,817

  6,022

  2,469

  2,181

  36

  Wolverhampton

  3,810

  3,366

  528

  466

  14

  610 611
  Notes:

  1. All figures are in £ thousands.

  2. Cash plans were not requested in 1981–84.

  3. The allocations made are in a few exceptional cases greater that the planned expenditure shown in the table. The information provided on plans was sometimes incomplete and adjustments were made to allocations.

  4. Current prices = cash plans.

  5. Constant prices are calculated at 1987–88 prices using the GDP deflator.

  6. Allocations for 1989–90 exclude PCFC institutions.

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

  Table B

  Voluntary aided capital plans and allocations 1981–82 to 1989–90

  1981–82 Plans and allocations

  1982–83 Plans

  1982–83 Allocation

  Local education authority

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Avon

  —

  —

  424

  533

  165

  208

  Barking

  4—

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Barnet

  —

  —

  494

  622

  260

  327

  Barnsley

  —

  —

  90

  113

  106

  133

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  156

  196

  172

  216

  Berkshire

  —

  —

  170

  214

  200

  252

  Bexley

  —

  —

  88

  111

  82

  103

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  480

  604

  576

  725

  Bolton

  —

  —

  227

  286

  65

  82

  Bradford

  —

  —

  762

  959

  779

  980

  Brent

  —

  —

  402

  506

  342

  430

  Bromley

  —

  —

  100

  126

  118

  148

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  —

  229

  288

  268

  337

  Bury

  —

  —

  41

  52

  47

  59

  Calderdale

  —

  —

  140

  176

  29

  36

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  502

  632

  194

  244

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  1,059

  1,332

  1,035

  1,302

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  537

  676

  556

  700

  Cornwall

  —

  —

  512

  644

  229

  288

  Coventry

  —

  —

  23

  29

  27

  34

  Croydon

  —

  —

  22

  28

  24

  30

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  320

  403

  345

  434

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  693

  872

  576

  725

  Devon

  —

  —

  42

  53

  49

  62

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  140

  176

  152

  191

  Dorset

  —

  —

  79

  99

  93

  117

  Dudley

  —

  —

  845

  1,063

  402

  506

  Durham

  —

  —

  387

  487

  219

  276

  Ealing

  —

  —

  341

  429

  185

  233

  East Sussex

  —

  —

  35

  44

  35

  44

  Enfield

  —

  —

  95

  120

  81

  102

  Essex

  —

  —

  808

  1,017

  514

  647

  Gateshead

  —

  —

  60

  75

  66

  83

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  194

  244

  223

  281

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  450

  566

  388

  488

  Haringey

  —

  —

  195

  245

  147

  185

  Harrow

  —

  —

  16

  20

  21

  26

  Havering

  —

  —

  54

  68

  24

  30

  Hereford and Worcester

  —

  —

  683

  859

  285

  359

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  550

  692

  406

  511

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  330

  415

  94

  118

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  129

  162

  24

  30

  Humberside

  —

  —

  143

  180

  145

  182

  ILEA

  —

  —

  2,369

  2,981

  3,181

  4,002

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  45

  57

  18

  23

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  —

  —

  1,620

  2,038

  1,404

  1,767

  Kingston

  —

  —

  107

  135

  8

  10

  Kirklees

  —

  —

  162

  204

  96

  121

  Knowsley

  —

  —

  158

  199

  159

  200

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  n/a

  nil

  706

  888

  Leeds

  —

  —

  127

  160

  146

  184

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  1,007

  1,267

  794

  999

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  529

  666

  301

  379

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  590

  742

  643

  809

  Manchester

  —

  —

  350

  440

  294

  370

  Merton

  —

  —

  310

  390

  347

  437

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  —

  —

  106

  133

  108

  136

  Newham

  —

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  891

  1,121

  843

  1,061

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  35

  44

  41

  52

  612

  613

  1981–82 Plans and allocations

  1982–83 Plans

  1982–83 Allocation

  Local education authority

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  North Tyneside

  —

  —

  27

  34

  24

  30

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  163

  205

  175

  220

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  80

  101

  94

  118

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  310

  390

  259

  326

  Oldham

  —

  —

  149

  187

  172

  216

  Oxfordshire

  —

  —

  60

  75

  47

  59

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  180

  226

  212

  267

  Richmond

  —

  —

  104

  131

  48

  60

  Rochdale

  —

  —

  529

  666

  622

  783

  Rotherham

  —

  —

  480

  604

  559

  703

  Salford

  —

  —

  214

  269

  122

  154

  Sandwell

  —

  —

  32

  40

  31

  39

  Sefton

  —

  —

  418

  526

  369

  464

  Sheffield

  —

  —

  100

  126

  24

  30

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  200

  252

  114

  143

  Solihull

  —

  —

  240

  302

  94

  118

  Somerset

  —

  —

  755

  950

  888

  1,117

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  700

  881

  588

  740

  St. Helens

  —

  —

  135

  170

  147

  185

  Stockport

  —

  —

  148

  186

  156

  196

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  194

  244

  136

  171

  Sunderland

  —

  —

  40

  50

  47

  59

  Surrey

  —

  —

  545

  686

  640

  805

  Sutton

  —

  —

  127

  160

  76

  96

  Tameside

  —

  —

  363

  457

  181

  228

  Trafford

  —

  —

  150

  189

  223

  281

  Wakefield

  —

  —

  10

  13

  8

  10

  Walsall

  —

  —

  700

  881

  287

  361

  Waltham

  —

  —

  87

  109

  0

  0

  Warwick

  —

  —

  605

  761

  259

  326

  West Sussex

  —

  —

  240

  302

  129

  162

  Wigan

  —

  —

  869

  1,093

  766

  964

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  452

  569

  526

  662

  Wirral

  —

  —

  995

  1,252

  1,141

  1,436

  Wolverhampton

  —

  —

  625

  786

  147

  185

  1983–84

  Plans

  Allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Avon

  316

  380

  352

  423

  Barking

  15

  18

  0

  0

  Barnet

  380

  457

  192

  231

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  36

  43

  Bedfordshire

  43

  52

  41

  49

  Berkshire

  95

  114

  86

  103

  Bexley

  15

  18

  47

  57

  Birmingham

  1,626

  1,955

  622

  748

  Bolton

  200

  241

  194

  233

  Bradford

  898

  1,080

  835

  1,004

  Brent

  338

  406

  298

  358

  Bromley

  1,100

  1,323

  80

  96

  Buckinghamshire

  389

  468

  603

  725

  Bury

  62

  75

  44

  53

  Calderdale

  185

  222

  145

  174

  Cambridgeshire

  821

  987

  196

  236

  Cheshire

  366

  440

  568

  683

  Cleveland

  1,409

  1,694

  116

  139

  Cornwall

  154

  185

  360

  433

  Coventry

  22

  26

  23

  28

  Croydon

  25

  30

  29

  35

  Cumbria

  112

  135

  156

  188

  Derbyshire

  215

  259

  310

  373

  Devon

  946

  1,138

  573

  689

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  28

  34

  Dorset

  308

  370

  84

  101

  Dudley

  890

  1,070

  603

  725

  Durham

  223

  268

  181

  218

  Ealing

  640

  770

  350

  421

  East Sussex

  50

  60

  43

  52

  Enfield

  320

  385

  314

  378

  Essex

  335

  403

  184

  221

  614

  615

  Plans

  Allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Gateshead

  172

  207

  118

  142

  Gloucestershire

  340

  409

  406

  488

  Hampshire

  34

  41

  48

  58

  Haringey

  171

  206

  58

  70

  Harrow

  36

  43

  22

  26

  Havering

  100

  120

  43

  52

  Hereford & Worcester

  937

  1,127

  115

  138

  Hertfordshire

  500

  601

  244

  293

  Hillingdon

  243

  292

  131

  158

  Hounslow

  220

  265

  76

  91

  Humberside

  45

  54

  28

  34

  ILEA

  2,777

  3,339

  2,416

  2,905

  IsIe of Wight

  73

  88

  20

  24

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  454

  546

  713

  857

  Kingston

  132

  159

  168

  202

  Kirklees

  46

  55

  121

  146

  Knowsley

  75

  90

  105

  126

  Lancashire

  1,004

  1,207

  928

  1,116

  Leeds

  160

  192

  36

  43

  Leicestershire

  345

  415

  274

  329

  Lincolnshirc

  104

  125

  195

  234

  Liverpool

  889

  1,069

  1,440

  1,732

  Manchester

  944

  1,135

  704

  847

  Merton

  124

  149

  119

  143

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  203

  244

  96

  115

  Newham

  12

  14

  10

  12

  Norfolk

  280

  337

  479

  576

  Northamptonshire

  184

  221

  245

  295

  North Tyneside

  240

  289

  109

  131

  Northumberland

  54

  65

  107

  129

  North Yorkshire

  230

  277

  183

  220

  Nottinghamshire

  540

  649

  619

  744

  Oldham

  26

  31

  99

  119

  Oxfordshire

  455

  547

  56

  67

  Redbridge

  460

  553

  454

  546

  Richmond

  21

  25

  19

  23

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  57

  69

  Rotherham

  805

  968

  70

  84

  Salford

  167

  201

  203

  244

  Sandwell

  47

  57

  26

  31

  Sefton

  443

  533

  452

  544

  Sheffield

  100

  120

  56

  67

  Shropshire

  236

  284

  45

  54

  Solihull

  435

  523

  108

  130

  Somerset

  8

  10

  8

  10

  South Tyneside

  78

  94

  29

  35

  Staffordshire

  410

  493

  431

  518

  St. Helens

  170

  204

  30

  36

  Stockport

  400

  481

  323

  388

  Suffolk

  240

  289

  83

  100

  Sunderland

  220

  265

  31

  37

  Surrey

  320

  385

  315

  379

  Sutton

  285

  343

  188

  226

  Tameside

  266

  320

  394

  474

  Trafford

  48

  58

  42

  51

  Wakefield

  65

  78

  52

  63

  Walsall

  400

  481

  533

  641

  Waltham

  91

  109

  48

  58

  Warwick

  268

  322

  346

  416

  West Sussex

  283

  340

  288

  346

  Wigan

  775

  932

  718

  863

  Wiltshire

  16

  19

  40

  48

  Wirral

  290

  349

  155

  186

  Wolverhampton

  260

  313

  78

  94

  1984–85

  Plans

  Allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Avon

  477

  547

  144

  165

  Barking

  7

  8

  7

  8

  Barnet

  2,380

  2,727

  1,091

  1,250

  616

  617

  Plans

  Allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  50

  57

  15

  17

  Berkshire

  287

  329

  145

  166

  Bexley

  389

  446

  5

  6

  Birmingham

  995

  1,140

  182

  209

  Bolton

  722

  827

  106

  121

  Bradford

  290

  332

  60

  69

  Brent

  566

  649

  340

  390

  Bromley

  325

  372

  32

  37

  Buckinghamshire

  475

  544

  175

  201

  Bury

  206

  236

  47

  54

  Calderdale

  234

  268

  230

  264

  Cambridgeshire

  672

  770

  395

  453

  Cheshire

  1,688

  1,934

  652

  747

  Cleveland

  738

  846

  213

  244

  Cornwall

  110

  126

  35

  40

  Coventry

  302

  346

  28

  32

  Croydon

  85

  97

  45

  52

  Cumbria

  578

  662

  300

  344

  Derbyshire

  475

  544

  225

  258

  Devon

  2,900

  3,323

  1,410

  1,616

  Doncaster

  50

  57

  40

  46

  Dorset

  1,339

  1,534

  610

  699

  Dudley

  2,567

  2,942

  417

  478

  Durham

  668

  765

  258

  296

  Ealing

  720

  825

  340

  390

  East Sussex

  230

  264

  35

  40

  Enfield

  538

  616

  375

  430

  Essex

  320

  367

  215

  246

  Gateshead

  260

  298

  233

  267

  Gloucestershire

  670

  768

  285

  327

  Hampshire

  147

  168

  40

  46

  Haringey

  400

  458

  60

  69

  Harrow

  163

  187

  10

  11

  Havering

  100

  115

  20

  23

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,135

  1,301

  650

  745

  Hertfordshire

  640

  733

  295

  338

  Hillingdon

  570

  653

  175

  201

  Hounslow

  628

  720

  190

  218

  Humberside

  114

  131

  35

  40

  ILEA

  4,978

  5,704

  1,590

  1,822

  Isle of Wight

  80

  92

  10

  11

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  1,630

  1,868

  935

  1,071

  Kingston

  360

  413

  190

  218

  Kirklees

  334

  383

  254

  291

  Knowsley

  390

  447

  110

  126

  Lancashire

  2,161

  2,476

  1,500

  1,719

  Leeds

  20

  23

  15

  17

  Leicestershire

  1,257

  1,440

  705

  808

  Lincolnshire

  337

  386

  177

  203

  Liverpool

  2,400

  2,750

  1,275

  1,461

  Manchester

  2,741

  3,141

  1,145

  1,312

  Merton

  78

  89

  20

  23

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  418

  479

  65

  74

  Newham

  233

  267

  15

  17

  Norfolk

  511

  586

  180

  206

  Northamptonshire

  n/a

  nil

  90

  103

  North Tyneside

  514

  589

  285

  327

  Northumberland

  119

  136

  35

  40

  North Yorkshire

  1,614

  1,849

  580

  665

  Nottinghamshire

  372

  426

  190

  218

  Oldham

  123

  141

  40

  46

  Oxfordshire

  155

  178

  15

  17

  Redbridge

  756

  866

  555

  636

  Richmond

  211

  242

  100

  115

  Rochdale

  283

  324

  75

  86

  Rotherham

  112

  128

  61

  70

  Salford

  616

  706

  80

  92

  Sandwell

  54

  62

  10

  11

  Sefton

  144

  165

  45

  52

  Sheffield

  278

  319

  33

  38

  Shropshire

  562

  644

  75

  86

  Solihull

  108

  124

  86

  99

  Somerset

  28

  32

  30

  34

  618

  619

  Plans

  Allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  South Tyneside

  210

  241

  65

  74

  Staffordshire

  784

  898

  435

  498

  St. Helens

  302

  346

  32

  37

  Stockport

  652

  747

  40

  46

  Suffolk

  355

  407

  200

  229

  Sunderland

  66

  76

  15

  17

  Surrey

  170

  195

  50

  57

  Sutton

  388

  445

  360

  413

  Tameside

  683

  783

  530

  607

  Trafford

  691

  792

  60

  69

  Wakefield

  293

  336

  155

  178

  Walsall

  100

  115

  50

  57

  Waltham

  1,275

  1,461

  1,005

  1,152

  Warwick

  395

  453

  110

  126

  West Sussex

  959

  1,099

  263

  301

  Wigan

  988

  1,132

  475

  544

  Wiltshire

  40

  46

  12

  14

  Wirral

  897

  1,028

  470

  539

  Wolverhampton

  320

  367

  185

  212

  1985–86

  Plans

  Allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Avon

  965

  1,048

  391

  425

  Barking

  112

  122

  20

  22

  Barnet

  3,021

  3,281

  1,662

  1,805

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  335

  364

  40

  43

  Berkshire

  1,150

  1,249

  62

  67

  Bexley

  421

  457

  42

  46

  Birmingham

  1,816

  1,973

  1,070

  1,162

  Bolton

  578

  628

  578

  628

  Bradford

  631

  685

  350

  380

  Brent

  485

  527

  46

  50

  Bromley

  311

  338

  211

  229

  Buckinghamshire

  1,437

  1,561

  11

  12

  Bury

  227

  247

  40

  43

  Calderdale

  361

  392

  151

  164

  Cambridgeshire

  577

  627

  87

  94

  Cheshire

  1,615

  1,754

  867

  942

  Cleveland

  1,119

  1,215

  200

  217

  Cornwall

  299

  325

  176

  191

  Coventry

  358

  389

  70

  76

  Croydon

  145

  157

  45

  49

  Cumbria

  825

  896

  528

  574

  Derbyshire

  455

  494

  375

  407

  Devon

  3,084

  3,350

  1,472

  1,599

  Doncaster

  95

  103

  95

  103

  Dorset

  643

  698

  135

  147

  Dudley

  2 227

  2,419

  666

  723

  Durham

  863

  937

  448

  487

  Ealing

  773

  840

  341

  370

  East Sussex

  722

  784

  640

  695

  Enfield

  858

  932

  620

  673

  Essex

  813

  883

  467

  507

  Gateshead

  832

  904

  318

  345

  Gloucestershire

  712

  773

  366

  398

  Hampshire

  432

  469

  60

  65

  Haringey

  898

  975

  425

  462

  Harrow

  208

  226

  20

  22

  Havering

  61

  66

  13

  14

  Hereford & Worcester

  1,102

  1,197

  793

  861

  Hertfordshire

  465

  505

  209

  227

  Hillingdon

  4,205

  4,567

  67

  73

  Hounslow

  545

  592

  324

  352

  Humberside

  20

  22

  20

  22

  ILEA

  8,362

  9,083

  3,477

  3,777

  Isle of Wight

  84

  91

  23

  25

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  1,438

  1,562

  307

  333

  Kingston

  221

  240

  71

  77

  Kirklees

  330

  358

  180

  196

  620

  621

  Plans

  Allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Knowsley

  378

  411

  190

  206

  Lancashire

  2,533

  2,751

  2,244

  2,437

  Leeds

  139

  151

  30

  33

  Leicestershire

  1,022

  1,110

  928

  1,008

  Lincolnshire

  320

  348

  160

  174

  Liverpool

  2,962

  3,217

  2,080

  2,259

  Manchester

  2,666

  2,896

  1,602

  1,740

  Merton

  213

  231

  118

  128

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  627

  681

  218

  237

  Newham

  160

  174

  25

  27

  Norfolk

  177

  192

  177

  192

  Northamptonshire

  539

  585

  44

  48

  North Tyneside

  627

  681

  429

  466

  Northumberland

  103

  112

  40

  43

  North Yorkshire

  2,260

  2,455

  1,890

  2,053

  Nottinghamshire

  207

  225

  22

  24

  Oldham

  355

  386

  73

  79

  Oxfordshire

  1,215

  1,320

  113

  123

  Redbridge

  808

  878

  695

  755

  Richmond

  173

  188

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  225

  244

  125

  136

  Rotherham

  86

  93

  46

  50

  Salford

  758

  823

  129

  140

  Sandwell

  53

  58

  25

  27

  Sefton

  52

  56

  52

  56

  Sheffield

  365

  396

  115

  125

  Shropshire

  565

  614

  284

  308

  Solihull

  189

  205

  75

  81

  Somerset

  102

  111

  30

  33

  South Tyneside

  185

  201

  185

  201

  Staffordshire

  671

  729

  239

  260

  St. Helens

  198

  215

  63

  68

  Stockport

  1,243

  1,350

  269

  292

  Suffolk

  279

  303

  164

  178

  Sunderland

  92

  100

  77

  84

  Surrey

  1,579

  1,715

  68

  74

  Sutton

  310

  337

  185

  201

  Tameside

  234

  254

  73

  79

  Trafford

  668

  726

  40

  43

  Wakefield

  215

  234

  125

  136

  Walsall

  338

  367

  25

  27

  Waltham

  996

  1,082

  1,375

  1,494

  Warwick

  445

  483

  245

  266

  West Sussex

  813

  883

  270

  293

  Wigan

  1,070

  1,162

  630

  684

  Wiltshire

  68

  74

  62

  67

  Wirral

  895

  972

  615

  668

  Wolverhampton

  174

  189

  30

  33

  1986–87

  Plans

  Allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Avon

  696

  732

  193

  203

  Barking

  118

  124

  0

  0

  Barnet

  1,844

  1,941

  400

  421

  Barnsley

  103

  108

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  457

  481

  0

  0

  Berkshire

  794

  836

  265

  279

  Bexley

  188

  198

  3

  3

  Birmingham

  1,380

  1,452

  615

  647

  Bolton

  1,023

  1,077

  575

  605

  Bradford

  866

  911

  320

  337

  Brent

  299

  315

  12

  13

  Bromley

  30

  32

  0

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  831

  875

  423

  445

  Bury

  241

  254

  3

  3

  Calderdale

  231

  243

  3

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  1,137

  1,197

  127

  134

  Cheshire

  2,192

  2,307

  836

  880

  Cleveland

  1,471

  1,548

  135

  142

  Cornwall

  814

  857

  252

  265

  Coventry

  127

  134

  22

  23

  622

  623

  Plans

  Allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Croydon

  158

  166

  48

  51

  Cumbria

  514

  541

  401

  422

  Derbyshire

  665

  700

  190

  200

  Devon

  2,176

  2,290

  132

  139

  Doncaster

  66

  69

  50

  53

  Dorset

  2,133

  2,245

  216

  227

  Dudley

  1,858

  1,955

  724

  762

  Durham

  1,339

  1,409

  425

  447

  Ealing

  1,108

  1,166

  331

  348

  East Sussex

  960

  1,010

  380

  400

  Enfield

  1,579

  1,662

  197

  207

  Essex

  333

  350

  150

  158

  Gateshead

  200

  210

  163

  172

  Gloucestershire

  1,313

  1,382

  252

  265

  Hampshire

  467

  491

  70

  74

  Haringey

  779

  820

  323

  340

  Harrow

  235

  247

  1

  1

  Havering

  180

  189

  0

  0

  Hereford & Worcester

  1,563

  1,645

  1,399

  1,472

  Hertfordshire

  2,261

  2,380

  46

  48

  Hillingdon

  672

  707

  40

  42

  Hounslow

  833

  877

  169

  178

  Humberside

  2,053

  2,161

  1,818

  1,913

  ILEA

  4,171

  4,390

  1,686

  1,774

  Isle of Wight

  72

  76

  2

  2

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  1,285

  1,352

  496

  522

  Kingston

  295

  310

  44

  46

  Kirklees

  166

  175

  16

  17

  Knowsley

  670

  705

  600

  631

  Lancashire

  1,471

  1,548

  1,302

  1,370

  Leeds

  220

  232

  90

  95

  Leicestershire

  1,594

  1,678

  1,241

  1,306

  Lincolnshire

  310

  326

  3

  3

  Liverpool

  2,557

  2,691

  2,360

  2,484

  Manchester

  3,060

  3,220

  2,250

  2,368

  Merton

  220

  232

  170

  179

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  351

  369

  191

  201

  Newham

  101

  106

  47

  49

  Norfolk

  568

  598

  89

  94

  Northamptonshire

  590

  621

  505

  531

  North Tyneside

  325

  342

  20

  21

  Northumberland

  98

  103

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  1,009

  1,062

  273

  287

  Nottinghamshire

  341

  359

  66

  69

  Oldham

  502

  528

  16

  17

  Oxfordshire

  2,068

  2,176

  470

  495

  Redbridge

  138

  145

  28

  29

  Richmond

  118

  124

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  558

  5X7

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  144

  152

  69

  73

  Salford

  1,037

  1,091

  610

  642

  Sandwell

  88

  93

  0

  0

  Sefton

  446

  469

  2

  2

  Sheffield

  480

  505

  300

  316

  Shropshire

  242

  255

  112

  118

  Solihull

  231

  243

  0

  0

  Somerset

  28

  29

  22

  23

  South Tyneside

  290

  305

  185

  195

  Staffordshire

  627

  660

  181

  190

  St. Helens

  344

  362

  6

  6

  Stockport

  982

  1,033

  447

  470

  Suffolk

  281

  296

  163

  172

  Sunderland

  421

  443

  0

  0

  Surrey

  2,190

  2,305

  10

  11

  Sutton

  219

  230

  35

  37

  Tameside

  226

  238

  35

  37

  Trafford

  509

  536

  0

  0

  Wakefield

  380

  400

  120

  126

  Walsall

  264

  278

  26

  27

  Waltham

  380

  400

  245

  258

  Warwick

  268

  282

  19

  20

  West Sussex

  609

  641

  334

  352

  Wigan

  1,231

  1,296

  781

  822

  Wiltshire

  148

  156

  29

  31

  624

  625

  Plans

  Allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Wirral

  811

  854

  416

  438

  Wolverhampton

  593

  624

  6

  6

  1987–88

  Plans

  Allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Avon

  1,366

  1,366

  885

  885

  Barking

  140

  140

  0

  0

  Barnet

  1,501

  1,501

  880

  880

  Barnsley

  244

  244

  5

  5

  Bedfordshire

  279

  279

  4

  4

  Berkshire

  890

  890

  593

  593

  Bexley

  201

  201

  126

  126

  Birmingham

  838

  838

  985

  985

  Bolton

  122

  122

  734

  734

  Bradford

  586

  586

  270

  270

  Brent

  243

  243

  613

  613

  Bromley

  30

  30

  20

  20

  Buckinghamshire

  1,008

  1,008

  1,701

  1,701

  Bury

  505

  505

  120

  120

  Calderdale

  243

  243

  25

  25

  Cambridgeshire

  1,095

  1,095

  465

  465

  Cheshire

  1,655

  1,655

  393

  393

  Cleveland

  962

  962

  130

  130

  Cornwall

  378

  378

  116

  116

  Coventry

  647

  647

  340

  340

  Croydon

  470

  470

  503

  503

  Cumbria

  193

  193

  596

  596

  Derbyshire

  270

  270

  685

  685

  Devon

  985

  985

  372

  372

  Doncaster

  42

  42

  0

  0

  Dorset

  1,778

  1,778

  1,267

  1,267

  Dudley

  2,329

  2,329

  858

  858

  Durham

  651

  651

  449

  449

  Ealing

  940

  940

  762

  762

  East Sussex

  575

  575

  1,630

  1,630

  Enfield

  1,260

  1,260

  93

  93

  Essex

  285

  285

  120

  120

  Gateshead

  134

  134

  895

  895

  Gloucestershire

  1,029

  1,029

  442

  442

  Hampshire

  943

  943

  130

  130

  Haringey

  781

  781

  75

  75

  Harrow

  218

  218

  25

  25

  Havering

  170

  170

  0

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  433

  433

  654

  654

  Hertfordshire

  1,038

  1,038

  457

  457

  Hillingdon

  1,076

  1,076

  230

  230

  Hounslow

  640

  640

  153

  153

  Humberside

  507

  507

  2,684

  2,684

  ILEA

  8,077

  8,077

  862

  862

  Isle of Wight

  95

  95

  70

  70

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  1,132

  1,132

  534

  534

  Kingston

  214

  214

  0

  0

  Kirklees

  84

  84

  14

  14

  Knowsley

  295

  295

  570

  570

  Lancashire

  504

  504

  793

  793

  Leeds

  80

  80

  20

  20

  Leicestershire

  762

  762

  592

  592

  Lincolnshire

  380

  380

  65

  65

  Liverpool

  3,080

  3,080

  2,239

  2,239

  Manchester

  1,056

  1,056

  2,831

  2,831

  Merton

  69

  69

  65

  65

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  556

  556

  338

  338

  Newham

  40

  40

  60

  60

  Norfolk

  639

  639

  41

  41

  Northamptonshire

  125

  125

  205

  205

  North Tyneside

  221

  221

  275

  275

  Northumberland

  467

  467

  110

  110

  North Yorkshire

  897

  897

  45

  45

  Nottinghamshire

  316

  316

  322

  322

  Oldham

  713

  713

  274

  274

  626

  627

  Plans

  Allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Oxfordshire

  1,122

  1,122

  273

  273

  Redbridge

  50

  50

  5

  5

  Richmond

  332

  332

  12

  12

  Rochdale

  660

  660

  335

  335

  Rotherham

  45

  45

  69

  69

  Salford

  460

  460

  750

  750

  Sandwell

  180

  180

  15

  15

  Sefton

  1,320

  1,320

  50

  50

  Sheffield

  670

  670

  130

  130

  Shropshire

  422

  422

  45

  45

  Solihull

  539

  539

  166

  166

  Somerset

  449

  449

  50

  50

  South Tyneside

  146

  146

  251

  251

  Staffordshire

  377

  377

  489

  489

  St. Helens

  1,536

  1,536

  888

  888

  Stockport

  225

  225

  122

  122

  Suffolk

  249

  249

  68

  68

  Sunderland

  299

  299

  375

  375

  Surrey

  929

  929

  1,079

  1,079

  Sutton

  224

  224

  0

  0

  Tameside

  240

  240

  35

  35

  Trafford

  387

  387

  30

  30

  Wakefield

  150

  150

  47

  47

  Walsall

  324

  324

  50

  50

  Waltham

  120

  120

  50

  50

  Warwick

  715

  715

  80

  80

  West Sussex

  593

  593

  420

  420

  Wigan

  1,016

  1,016

  1,045

  1,045

  Wiltshire

  187

  187

  35

  35

  Wirral

  1,425

  1,425

  322

  322

  Wolverhampton

  48

  48

  8

  8

  1988–89

  Plans

  Allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Avon

  441

  411

  436

  406

  Barking

  162

  151

  15

  14

  Barnet

  1,674

  1,560

  1,109

  1,034

  Barnsley

  12

  11

  12

  11

  Bedfordshire

  278

  259

  0

  0

  Berkshire

  1,820

  1,696

  492

  459

  Bexley

  856

  798

  617

  575

  Birmingham

  751

  700

  1,847

  1,721

  Bolton

  413

  385

  3,432

  3,199

  Bradford

  211

  197

  86

  80

  Brent

  226

  211

  467

  435

  Bromley

  625

  582

  30

  28

  Buckinghamshire

  850

  792

  1,932

  1,801

  Bury

  336

  313

  1,052

  980

  Calderdale

  326

  304

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  916

  854

  345

  322

  Cheshire

  1,567

  1,460

  515

  480

  Cleveland

  886

  826

  170

  158

  Cornwall

  1,180

  1,100

  145

  135

  Coventry

  473

  441

  53

  49

  Croydon

  1,215

  1,132

  40

  37

  Cumbria

  363

  338

  429

  400

  Derbyshire

  525

  489

  1,155

  1,076

  Devon

  816

  760

  619

  577

  Doncaster

  50

  47

  50

  47

  Dorset

  3,124

  2,912

  1,421

  1,324

  Dudley

  2,919

  2,720

  535

  499

  Durham

  538

  501

  150

  140

  Ealing

  495

  461

  971

  905

  East Sussex

  800

  746

  2,091

  1,949

  Enfield

  1,844

  1,719

  383

  357

  Essex

  732

  682

  831

  774

  Gateshead

  144

  134

  884

  824

  Gloucestershire

  1,559

  1,453

  536

  500

  Hampshire

  2,714

  2,529

  288

  268

  Haringey

  564

  526

  50

  47

  Harrow

  781

  728

  25

  23

  628

  629

  Plans

  Allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Havering

  170

  158

  70

  65

  Hereford and Worcester

  598

  557

  61

  57

  Hertfordshire

  1,723

  1,606

  467

  435

  Hillingdon

  889

  829

  350

  326

  Hounslow

  620

  578

  26

  24

  Humberside

  1,283

  1,196

  1,315

  1,226

  ILEA

  12,680

  11,818

  1,641

  1,529

  Isle of Wight

  68

  63

  839

  782

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  3,224

  3,005

  386

  360

  Kingston

  279

  260

  0

  0

  Kirklees

  65

  61

  45

  42

  Knowsley

  490

  457

  720

  671

  Lancashire

  1,027

  957

  3,298

  3,074

  Leeds

  635

  592

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  1,099

  1,024

  1,036

  966

  Lincolnshire

  642

  598

  125

  116

  Liverpool

  6,193

  5,772

  652

  608

  Manchester

  1,671

  1,557

  2,585

  2,409

  Merton

  387

  361

  0

  0

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  667

  622

  105

  98

  Newham

  0

  0

  4

  4

  Norfolk

  503

  469

  253

  236

  Northamptonshire

  243

  226

  132

  123

  North Tyneside

  479

  446

  329

  307

  Northumberland

  361

  336

  178

  166

  North Yorkshire

  746

  695

  100

  93

  Nottinghamshire

  827

  771

  203

  189

  Oldham

  974

  908

  2,218

  2,067

  Oxfordshire

  2,195

  2,046

  682

  636

  Redbridge

  128

  119

  60

  56

  Richmond

  1,041

  970

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  1,261

  1,175

  1,762

  1,642

  Rotherham

  20

  19

  48

  45

  Salford

  823

  767

  745

  694

  Sandwell

  70

  65

  5

  5

  Sefton

  534

  498

  293

  273

  Sheffield

  1,138

  1,061

  518

  483

  Shropshire

  832

  775

  265

  247

  Solihull

  433

  404

  638

  595

  Somerset

  739

  689

  559

  521

  South Tyneside

  151

  141

  106

  99

  Staffordshire

  716

  667

  955

  890

  St. Helens

  835

  77S

  2,823

  2,631

  Stockport

  599

  558

  50

  47

  Suffolk

  952

  887

  246

  229

  Sunderland

  159

  148

  224

  209

  Surrey

  618

  576

  1,660

  1,547

  Sutton

  709

  661

  0

  0

  Tameside

  386

  360

  90

  84

  Trafford

  1,174

  1,094

  5

  5

  Wakefield

  292

  272

  70

  65

  Walsall

  283

  264

  36

  34

  Waltham

  50

  47

  11

  10

  Warwick

  617

  575

  715

  666

  West Sussex

  438

  408

  1,644

  1,532

  Wigan

  950

  885

  385

  359

  Wiltshire

  229

  213

  35

  33

  Wirral

  518

  483

  290

  270

  Wolverhampton

  170

  158

  27

  25

  1989–90

  Plans

  Allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Avon

  1,012

  894

  710

  627

  Barking

  1,580

  1,396

  0

  0

  Barnet

  506

  447

  1,392

  1,230

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  285

  252

  0

  0

  Berkshire

  1,097

  969

  1,124

  993

  Bexley

  964

  852

  223

  197

  Birmingham

  866

  765

  1,992

  1,760

  630 631

  Plans

  Allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Bolton

  206

  182

  250

  221

  Bradford

  700

  618

  473

  418

  Brent

  301

  266

  519

  458

  Bromley

  597

  527

  5

  4

  Buckinghamshire

  854

  754

  17

  15

  Bury

  232

  205

  1,221

  1,079

  Calderdale

  397

  351

  275

  243

  Cambridgeshire

  1,415

  1,250

  249

  220

  Cheshire

  816

  721

  1,589

  1,404

  Cleveland

  986

  871

  203

  179

  Cornwall

  1,904

  1,682

  1,087

  960

  Coventry

  683

  603

  572

  505

  Croydon

  500

  442

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  235

  208

  559

  494

  Derbyshire

  805

  711

  401

  354

  Devon

  939

  830

  226

  200

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  8

  7

  Dorset

  2,898

  2,560

  1,197

  1,057

  Dudley

  985

  870

  1,176

  1,039

  Durham

  415

  367

  46

  41

  Ealing

  186

  164

  12

  11

  East Sussex

  3,201

  2,828

  917

  810

  Enfield

  1,108

  979

  825

  729

  Essex

  2,655

  2,345

  229

  202

  Gateshead

  258

  228

  789

  697

  Gloucestershire

  3,111

  2,748

  1,218

  1,076

  Hampshire

  4,114

  3,634

  927

  819

  Haringey

  1,169

  1,033

  331

  292

  Harrow

  230

  203

  50

  44

  Havering

  118

  104

  858

  758

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,281

  1,132

  570

  504

  Hertfordshire

  1,972

  1,742

  673

  595

  Hillingdon

  331

  292

  306

  270

  Hounslow

  309

  273

  0

  0

  Humberside

  483

  427

  352

  311

  ILEA

  12,909

  11,404

  2,367

  2,091

  Isle of Wight

  75

  66

  300

  265

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  7,087

  6,261

  934

  825

  Kingston

  366

  323

  21

  19

  Kirklees

  45

  40

  5

  4

  Knowsley

  658

  581

  152

  134

  Lancashire

  1,652

  1,459

  4,734

  4,182

  Leeds

  2,336

  2,064

  4,875

  4,307

  Leicestershire

  1,149

  1,015

  476

  420

  Lincolnshire

  153

  135

  16

  14

  Liverpool

  3,538

  3,125

  2,060

  1,820

  Manchester

  1,055

  932

  1,339

  1,183

  Merton

  575

  508

  300

  265

  Newcastle- upon -Ty ne

  478

  422

  583

  515

  Newham

  50

  44

  15

  13

  Norfolk

  839

  741

  389

  344

  Northamptonshire

  95

  84

  20

  18

  North Tyneside

  425

  375

  774

  684

  Northumberland

  193

  170

  394

  348

  North Yorkshire

  979

  865

  109

  96

  Nottinghamshire

  869

  768

  237

  209

  Oldham

  692

  611

  1,816

  1,604

  Oxfordshire

  1,717

  1,517

  64

  57

  Redbridge

  80

  71

  575

  508

  Richmond

  747

  660

  358

  316

  Rochdale

  875

  773

  1,189

  1,050

  Rotherham

  69

  61

  0

  0

  Salford

  389

  344

  290

  256

  Sandwell

  43

  38

  58

  51

  Sefton

  812

  717

  676

  597

  Sheffield

  620

  548

  153

  135

  Shropshire

  386

  341

  120

  106

  Solihull

  122

  108

  425

  375

  Somerset

  839

  741

  1,506

  1,330

  South Tyneside

  56

  49

  200

  177

  Staffordshire

  735

  649

  822

  726

  St. Helens

  80

  71

  3,564

  3,148

  Stockport

  161

  142

  45

  40

  Suffolk

  220

  194

  232

  205

  632

  633

  Plans

  Allocation

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Sunderland

  132

  117

  99

  87

  Surrey

  1,152

  1,018

  2,411

  2,130

  Sutton

  718

  634

  168

  148

  Tameside

  251

  222

  30

  27

  Trafford

  712

  629

  240

  212

  Wakefield

  340

  300

  153

  135

  Walsall

  119

  105

  62

  55

  Waltham

  70

  62

  17

  15

  Warwick

  692

  611

  631

  557

  West Sussex

  1,308

  1,155

  839

  741

  Wigan

  765

  676

  515

  455

  Wiltshire

  813

  718

  71

  63

  Wirral

  95

  84

  2,173

  1,920

  Wolverhampton

  235

  208

  0

  0

  Notes:

  1. All figures are in £ thousands.

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

  3. The allocations made may be greater than the planned expenditure shown in the table. The information provided on plans was sometimes incomplete and compensatory adjustments were made to allocations.

  4. Current prices =cash plans.

  5. Constant prices are calculated at 1987–88 prices using the GDP deflator.

  6. The planned expenditure relates to new work only, but the allocations included allowances for on-going projects.

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

  8. 1989–90 figures exclude Design List projects.

  9. Figures are in 100 per cent. terms on which the Department pays grant at 85 per cent.
  634

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Prison Visiting: Arrangements
The Lord Bishop of Manchester The Lord Bishop of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the adequacy of arrangements for the comfort of wives and other relatives waiting to visit prisoners.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, a number of establishments now have visitors' reception centres. Funds will be available from next year to help with the running costs of new centres. We are also looking to the voluntary sector to make a major contribution. All new establishments in the prison building programme will include a purpose-built visitors' reception area.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that slightly encouraging reply, but I am sure that he is aware that the list of prisons produced by the Prison Reform Trust shows very few prison visitors' centres with adequate facilities. Will he confirm that only £60,000 is available for the support of such centres in the current year? Will he give an indication as to how much that figure will be improved in the sum that he mentioned? Is he further aware that Strangeways Prison has a visitors' centre which has been used by 325,000 visitors and families in the last couple of years or since it was opened in 1986, that its future is in jeopardy because of underfunding and that an estimated £50,000 is needed to secure its future?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for saying that the Answer was at least slightly encouraging. I thought that it was rather more than that. I can tell him that up to £15,000 for each of five new centres in each of the next four years has been allocated, which allows a total of £464,000 earmarked for visitors' centres over the next three years.
I understand the difficulties which the visitors' centre at Strangeways Prison is experiencing. I understand too that the Selcare Trust, which manages the centre and whose president is the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, is looking for new sources of funding. I am bound to tell the right reverend Prelate—I am not inviting them; I am simply telling him—that we have not yet received any requests for funding.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that unless the £57,000 is forthcoming the centre will be in jeopardy? The sad fact is that if such a centre were to close we should be unable to predict with any certainty whether anything would
538
be able to take its place. Surely we do not want to go back to the appalling situation that existed before where wives and girlfriends of inmates of Strangeways on remand were asked to queue outside in the rain and had to change their babies there. I ask the Minister to look at the immediate funding of the Strangeways centre as a matter of urgency and to give it sympathetic consideration.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I appreciate the difficulties which surround the visitors' centre in Strangeways, but the noble Lord will realise that an emergency grant of £15,000 was made this year out of a total of £37,000 which was given in emergency grants to centres which were seriously short of funds. I realise that the Selcare Trust takes an interest in the visitors' centre, as do the Save the Children Fund and the local probation service. One of the difficulties is that the cost of running Strangeways visitors' centre is a good deal higher than for most visitors' centres.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that visiting conditions at Brixton Prison have been greatly improved in the last two years? Is he aware that at about that time, when I last made a visit there, the conditions for visitors to Brixton were quite disgraceful? There was no shelter for visitors, let alone a visitors' centre. They waited outside in all weathers and when they went inside it was bedlam. There was no privacy. All the visitors were together with all the prisoners. Have things greatly improved since then? It is all the more disgraceful because Brixton is a remand prison.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I must confess that there is a great deal of ground to make up until we reach a position in which we can all take pride and with which we can be satisfied. About 20 prisons now have visitors' reception centres and all new prisons have reception centres designed in them. As funds and time permit, we try to update the existing buildings when refurbishment is carried out.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, will my noble friend tell me how many railway vouchers prisoners' wives or other relatives are now entitled to per month?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give my noble friend the answer to that question, but I shall see whether I can find it out and let her know.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the time available for wives and relatives to visit remand prisoners is restricted in nearly all prisons to only 15 minutes? Does he agree that it is highly desirable that contact between prisoners, especially those on remand, and their families should be maintained? Does he also agree that 15 minutes is an absurdly short time for any wife or relative who has any distance to travel? Will he look into the matter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Baroness. It is very important that prisoners should be able to keep contact with their relatives

539
and families. I shall look into the point which she raised about the length of time that they are allowed to talk to each other.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend care to comment on the view held by many people that the very depressing sight of wives, children and other relatives waiting in the rain outside prisons in order to visit prisoners is a critically important sanction to those with felonious intent?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite agree that it is highly undesirable. That is the reason why in all new prisons we are making arrangements for visitors' centres to be incorporated in the buildings. It is why we are trying to refurbish those existing prisons which are due for renovation and include within them visitors' centres. We are spending a lot of money on prisons. About £230 million is for new prisons, and it is a question of whether one spends that money on visitors' centres or on the care of the prisoners themselves.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not just a question of it being desirable that families should be able to visit prisoners and prisoners see their families? When trying to keep the family together that is about the one hope of some rehabilitation. In those circumstances is it not quite disgraceful that the Government are relying on voluntary contributions for a matter of this kind? Does the Minister further agree that it is not just a question which concerns the prisons that happen to have been mentioned today; namely, Manchester and Brixton? Leeds Prison is also in a dreadful position. One of the officers described to me the situation when relatives turned up to visit prisoners as something like a zoo.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord that rehabilitation is very important. But he will be the first to realise that visitors' centres are outside the prison buildings. They are centres used by the families of the prisoners. While it is highly desirable to make them better—we are doing all that we can to do so—I think it is more important that government funds should be spent on improving the state of the prisons themselves, for which the noble Lord and many others have frequently criticised all governments. We are spending our money on that and we are doing our best to incorporate the visitors' centres as well.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, that is a most distressing answer. We have said for years that the expenditure on new prisons, while desirable, can only be accepted in terms of bad prisons being closed down and existing prisons being made better. Does the Minister not agree that after all these years it is quite incredible to answer the very serious questions of this House about a number of different prisons by saying that the money will be spent elsewhere because it is more important?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord feels very concerned about this matter because
540
he has frequently spoken about it. However, I ask him to recall that this year we are spending £70 million on refurbishing our existing prisons. That is a point on which the noble Lord and many of his friends have constantly pressed the Government. We are spending £230 million on new prisons. The noble Lord would like to have all the cake and the icing on top but it is not always possible to have it.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I should like, if necessary, £30 million of the £230 million to be spent putting right the visiting arrangements in all our three or four hundred prisons.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I understood the noble Lord correctly he suggests that we should spend more money on visitors' centres and less on refurbishing the prisons and getting rid of slopping out. However, that is what we have put our attention to.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, is the Minister aware of my concern about the existing patchy provision in relation to access and facilities for disabled visitors? The Prison Reform Trust tells me that there is little improvement in the situation in newly built prisons.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I recognise that there are difficulties for those who are disabled, particularly at the older prisons. We take the needs of the disabled into account both when refurbishing the old prisons and when designing new ones. Facilities are improved as and when the opportunity arises.

Nuclear Weapons Tests: Policy
2.48 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they resisted a nuclear test ban at Geneva, in view of the probability that a Labour Government would immediately support such a ban.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, for the foreseeable future our security will depend on deterrence based in part on the possession of nuclear weapons. That will mean a continuing requirement to test our nuclear weapons in order to ensure that they remain effective and up to date. A comprehensive test ban therefore remains a long-term goal, to which progress can only be made on a step by step basis.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. He will recall that at the September meeting in Geneva the debate between the parties interested seemed to be between the desirability of revising the present partial test ban treaty and drafting a completely new comprehensive test ban treaty. As I understand it from the Geneva note on the subject, the American representative (who I think was Mr. Friedensdorf) replied that

541
the US and the UK opposed the convening of an amending conference. Does that mean that they are prepared to consider the possibility of a complete comprehensive test ban treaty or that they are not?
Secondly, Mr. Friedensdorf went on to say that the US, the UK and the USSR intend to hold such a conference. That seems rather contradictory. On the one hand, he is against revising the existing treaty but, on the other hand, he says that those three countries intend to go ahead with it. Will the Minister be good enough to explain to the House the present situation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to the proposed amendment to the partial test ban treaty. The United Kingdom cannot support this amendment given our continuing requirement to conduct underground nuclear tests to ensure that our nuclear weapons remain effective and up to date. Since an amendment would require the support of all three original parties—ourselves, the United States and the Soviet Union—in order to be approved, an amendment conference would be futile and costly. But we shall fulfil our duties as a depository of the treaty. That means that a conference would have to be convened.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord has not answered my question. Will he inform the House of the present situation? Has the conference between the USA, the USSR and the UK been arranged? Will it take place? Can he add to our information on this?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have held initial discussions with the other depositories—the two other countries to which the noble Lord referred—in order to begin preparations for convening the conference. We are now discussing with the other parties the best way forward. The depositories believe that the conference should be held in January 1991.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, since noble Lords are responsible for the accuracy of any Question that they put down, has my noble friend evidence to demonstrate the fact that even now the Official Opposition would support a ban, irrespective of the effect that it would have upon our defence capabilities during this period of change?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot answer that question. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, will have his views and the Opposition (the Labour Party) their views on whether they would have a test ban. It is not for the Government to say. We would wish to continue testing. Our long-term goal is a comprehensive test ban. It is also our goal that there should not be a Labour Government either in the short or the long term.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in his early days in his new position—and I congratulate him upon it—the noble Lord has made a very considerable mistake, but no doubt he will learn as time goes on. Can he say what progress is being made in the START talks? Is he aware that the policy
542
of Her Majesty's Opposition is to proceed in concert and in agreement with our allies, including the United States and France? In view of the damage to the environment that has been caused by continuing testing, is there a possibility of negotiating a moratorium with the United States, the USSR and France, which are the countries that are continuing to test to the damage of the environment?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the first part of his question. I am not sure of the mistake that I made to which he referred. I am grateful also for his explanation of the official policy of the party opposite.
On a moratorium on testing, we are not interested in such a moratorium. We need to test at a minimum level and will continue to do so in order to make sure that our deterrent is effective.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, it is refreshing to hear the Government's opposition to a test ban treaty explained not in terms of the unverifiability of such tests—they have been verifiable for many years—but that they wish to be able lo test our new warhead for Trident and no doubt the new warhead for the short-range nuclear missiles. However, do I understand from the noble Lord's original Answer that the Government's position is that in order to deter aggression by the Warsaw Pact this country now needs a major increase in its nuclear capability?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think that I said anything along those lines in my original Answer. I said that a comprehensive test ban remains our long-term goal but progress can be made only by a step-by-step approach. This must take account of technical advances on verification as well as progress elsewhere on arms control and the attitude of other states.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, as the one who negotiated the test ban treaty in 1963, perhaps I may ask my noble friend this question. Is it possible still to take the view that, so long as nuclear weapons exist, there is not the slightest possibility whatever of the major powers agreeing to a total ban on tests underground, and that even if there were, there are other powers which are not members of that treaty and have not adhered to it who would continue to do so, whatever we said?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble and learned friend, who obviously has experience going back to the negotiation of this treaty, makes very good points.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, to put the record straight, is the Minister aware that some of us on this side of the House believe that there is no point in having a nuclear weapon unless one tests it to find out whether it goes off? That is the first point. Secondly, one does not abandon such tests until all the countries in the world agree to do so.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support of our policies.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, what evidence can be given that nuclear warheads are in fact tested before they go off?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. I am not quite sure exactly what happens in these tests.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on this point he is mistaken in believing that there is a difference between the Front Bench and other Benches in the Labour Party? We are at one in our desire to ban all nuclear weapons. There may be some slight divergence on exactly how we do it, but we are at one in the aim that we seek.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think that I said that I detected a difference. I said that I was looking forward to an explanation. I now have it.

Strike Pay and Income Tax
2.56 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether income tax is collected in respect of strike pay paid by a trade union to members who are on strike.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, no.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does that Answer mean that a man who is doing his job suffers deduction of tax from his pay but that if he goes on strike he obtains tax-free emoluments? How long can he go on doing so?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the position is that strike pay is not taxable because it is not income for any tax purpose since it is classified as effectively return of trade union subscriptions, which are generally paid out of taxed income.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in instances where Ministers of the Crown, in particular in another place, are unable to continue with their financial transactions and independent agencies do so on their behalf, are those transactions also subject to income tax from each and every Minister?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord veers quite a long way from the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, if the noble Earl believes that the tax reforming zeal of his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter needs encouragement, will he consider asking his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to amend the existing tax law? Under the current arrangements executives earning £1 million a year are enabled so to arrange their affairs that they pay no tax.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that also is another question.

Electricity Privatisation and AGRs
2.58 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now take the advanced gas reactors out of the electricity privatisation programme.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, negotiations are taking place with all parts of the electricity industry on the future arrangements for the supply of nuclear power.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the debates on the Electricity Bill, some of us pressed his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, to inform the House whether all the costs of nuclear energy were being taken into account? Has it not become apparent since then that that was not done? Do the Government agree with the estimate made by Large and Associates, the engineering consultants, that the decommissioning of AGRs would cost between £50 billion and £60 billion? If the Government do not agree, what is their figure for the cost of decommissioning?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government have never denied the fact that nuclear power is more expensive than fossil-generated power. However, nuclear has a vital strategic role to play in security of supply. It is because of these additional costs that we need the non-fossil fuel obligation. Electricity customers benefit from diversity of supply that nuclear provides.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the Minister answer my question? Does he agree with my figure of £50 billion to £60 billion for decommissioning the AGRs? If not, what is the Government's figure?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the costs mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, are still subject to negotiations between the generating companies and the supply companies.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend inform his right honourable friend the Secretary of State that as the Government have already agreed to take back into the public sector 27 Magnox reactors they may as well take back the other five reactors which are AGRs?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend may have the number wrong. I believe that we have only eight Magnox stations although we may have more reactors. However, I take his point and I shall pass on his comments to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the paper prepared by the

545
Department of Energy, and submitted to a sub-committee of Cabinet on the privatisation of electricity, stated that the cost of nuclear-produced electricity will be roughly double that of coal-fired stations? Will the Minister confirm that assessment? Secondly, will he confirm that before Her Majesty's Government can go ahead with the privatisation of electricity they must seek exemptions from the Common Market competition law?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall not comment on every speculative figure which is bandied about. Many of the figures which are quoted and requoted in the press—
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, they are in the paper.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, they are wild guesses and others certainly manifest errors and inaccuracies. The level of fossil and non-fossil fuel prices, and as a consequence the rate of any levy, are the subject of negotiations now taking place.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, what information does the Minister have to support the statement that some articles appearing in responsible sections of the British press contain wild calculations or statements? What information does he have on which to base that statement?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I said that what is quoted in the paper may be one thing but I am not prepared to speculate on it.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not the case that the Question relates to taking out of the privatisation programme certain gas cooled reactors and are we not straying wildly beyond that Question when we start arguing about the merits of coal and the relative costs of decommissioning? If those questions are to be asked, would it not be better if they were put down on the Order Paper?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am always grateful to my noble and learned friend for his wise counsel.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, would the Minister care to explain to his noble and learned friend that it is a question of putting together a prospectus for National Power, that the costs of decommissioning—whether £7 billion, £10 billion or more—are substantial and that they must be properly verified when making out a prospectus for National Power? If the AGRs are taken out of National Power the prospectus is relatively easy to write. If they are not taken out of National Power then, in my view, the prospectus is impossible to write and I said so in this House on Second Reading of the Electricity Bill. Will the Minister therefore explain to his noble and learned friend that questions on the costs of decommissioning and the Government's precise figures are supremely relevant?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have already said that negotiations are taking place on the future
546
supply of nuclear power. I really cannot pre-empt their outcome.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figures that I gave came from a company whose representatives gave evidence to the House of Commons Environment and Energy Committee and that they are not figures thrown about in the press? He has still not answered the question as to whether the figures are accurate. If they are, does he agree that privatisation of the nuclear programme becomes totally impossible?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have already said to the noble Lord that the figures which he quotes may contain some truth. However, what is important is that there is nothing which I shall say to confirm or deny them. They are subject to negotiations between the power generators and the suppliers.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, for a long time many of us have thought that the only sensible answer is to retain the nuclear power stations temporarily under Government control. Can the Minister say why the Government are not prepared to take that sensible action?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I can only repeat what I have already said; negotiations are taking place and I cannot pre-empt their outcome.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Denham Lord Denham My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Davidson will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Clapham Junction Inquiry Report.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that consideration of Commons amendments to the Companies Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Amendment) Order 1989 and the Youth Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 will be taken.

Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid.
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three

547
o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session;
That all petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Select Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Select Committee, shall stand referred to the Select Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no petitioners shall be heard before the Select Committee on the Bill, unless their petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 109 relating to Private Business;
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 110 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 109" were omitted.—(the Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Heathrow Express Railway Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with it if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bill in regard
548
to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session;
That all petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Select Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Select Committee, shall stand referred to the Select Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no petitioners shall be heard before the Select Committee on the Bill, unless their petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 109 relating to Private Business;
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 110 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 109" were omitted.—(the Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in considering the Motion we must take into account that the Bill left this House containing 240 pages and that we have received 531 amendments from the Commons. In those amendments there are 23 mistakes.
I am glad to see many noble Lords opposite whose faces, I am ashamed to say, I do not recognise. I hope that they will stay after Amendments Nos. 1 and 1A so that we can become involved in the technicalities of accountancy.
The Commons amendments consist of 180 pages of printed text. In addition, there is a great deal of new material in all sections of the Bill. Many government amendments were not discussed in another place because the Report stage was guillotined. As I said on Second Reading, we could have handled a Bill containing Parts I and II which were fulfilling our obligations under the Community directive; but an omnibus Bill of this type, more or less made up as we go along, is not one that this House as a revising Chamber can easily handle. We on these Benches are tired of this House being used as a sort of legislative sausage machine and I hope that I speak for the whole House when I lodge the strongest objection.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, as this is really a business management matter perhaps I may say a few words in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I would not deny for one second to your Lordships that this Bill has been very greatly amended in another place. However, I briefly say to the House that it deals with very complex matters. These matters, as the noble Lord, being an expert, knows very well, reflect swift developments in company legislation. Therefore, I do not believe, as

549
the noble Lord implied, that it is so much a matter of the Government getting matters wrong as Parliament doing its job.
The reason I have risen to my feet is to add that through the usual channels we took the unprecedented step of setting aside three days for the consideration of Commons amendments which on this side of the House will be dealt with by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. We also took steps to ensure that a clear week elapsed between the completion of the House of Commons amendments and their consideration today. Therefore, while as always—and I make no secret of this—I do not wish to see undue burdens fall on your Lordships' House, I think that in the case of this particular Bill, Parliament is giving full consideration to very complex legislation, as I believe is appropriate.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House rose to his feet rather more speedily than I had anticipated. I wanted to support most strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said. I hope that it will not be considered presumptuous if I speak briefly but sincerely and positively on behalf of the multitude of men and women outside this House—those in the professions, academics and employees of small and medium sized companies—who, for the benefit of UK industry, have to do their best to understand company law as it is eventually passed by this House. They have to interpret what your Lordships, as a revising Chamber, determine will be company law.
The Government seem to me to be unmindful of the practical realities associated with company law. We were all becoming familiar with the four centimetre depth of the Companies Act 1985. However, government amendments now delete 42 clauses and seven schedules of this Bill. Over 200 pages have been deleted at the last minute in one fell swoop and replaced by pages and pages of new clauses.
Not satisfied with that savage attack on the Bill, the Government guillotined many amendments before the other place. Your Lordships are therefore presented with 531 new amendments, many of which have not been considered in the other place. Some of the amendments are of extraordinary length. Amendment No. 129 extends to just under 16 pages, Amendment No. 155 has 13 pages and Amendment No. 494 covers 24 pages. Sometimes I feel that one is always hitting one's head against the inevitable brick wall when trying to put forward frankly and sincerely the difficulties encountered by men and women working for the benefit of industry when so little time is given for the study of this mass of new material.
To use a well known word or phrase, in spite of what the Leader of the House has said, I believe that my complaints are unassailable. To put in all these amendments so hurriedly without adequate notice rather blows the cover off the Government's assertions that their aim is to help, in particular, small and medium sized businesses.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I meant to show no discourtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of
550
Kilgerran. I apologise for rising to my feet before he did. With respect, whereas I think that the noble Lord has a good point in wanting to protect the rights and privileges of your Lordships' House, I believe that he neglected the fact that we are dealing with highly complex legislation. I think it would be a brave man, even in your Lordships' House, who suggested that another place did not have the right to amend—and amend quite extensively—a Bill of this nature. That is what has happened and the business managers in this House have tried to protect its rights and privileges by doing the one thing open to us; namely, we have allowed plenty of time to look at the myriad of amendments—and the noble Lord is quite right in that—by setting aside an unprecedented number of days so that we can have proper debate.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I must say to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that he has not really met the points that have been made. The two noble Lords have registered a protest. It is a protest made continually against this Government over the past few years; namely, that Bills have been presented to Parliament which have not been properly drafted or thought through by Ministers and their advisers.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House says that the other place has a perfect right and indeed a duty to amend legislation as it sees fit. Of course, we accept that: it has always been the case. However, in the history of this Government it is happening time and time again. Shoals of amendments are being heaped on to Bills creating a most difficult position for this House and for noble Lords on all sides.
We accept immediately what the noble Lord said about the complexity of this legislation. I am personally grateful to my noble friend Lord Williams, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and others who have taken part in the debates and who have sought to cast light upon what is a very difficult piece of legislation. That does not do away with the central point made by my noble friend; namely, that this Government stand charged with bringing forward legislation which they have not properly thought out.
That is a matter which is being criticised not only by noble Lords in this House and honourable Members on all sides in the other place but by interested parties outside this House in the fields of industry and accountancy. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that point and convey it to his right honourable friends in the Cabinet, especially the Prime Minister.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, there is one point which I believe should be kept in mind. Noble Lords, in their strictures, talk about the Government having done this and having done that. These alterations are the result of what Parliament—the other place—thinks about it. On a question such as this, the House of Commons has a greater authority, or should have, for putting its point of view as to

551
what will eventually be the legislation. I do not believe that we should reach the position where noble Lords in this House, which is a very important part of Parliament, should pit their own authority against that of the House of Commons whose Members are elected and who have to answer to the people affected at the ballot box every four to five years.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few final words from this side of the House in answer to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls for his intervention. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has a perfectly fair point and I shall indeed ensure that my Cabinet colleagues are aware of what the noble Lord said. However, I think that enough is enough and that we have a task ahead of us on which we should now embark.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS AND AMENDMENTS MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 130 as first printed for the Commons.]
COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert 'and'.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT
1A The Lord Williams of Elvel to move, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1A standing in my name on the Marshalled List, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. It will be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to Commons Amendments Nos. 2 and 14 which are consequential and to my Amendments Nos. 2A and 14A which are equally consequential.
When the Bill was in Committee, the first amendment that your Lordships accepted—against the advice of the Government—related to political contributions. We return to this theme again since Commons Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 14 seek to negate the amendment that your Lordships passed.
The amendments deal with the rights of shareholders over political contributions made by companies. When the Bill came back to us on Report it was pointed out to me that there was a potential defect in the amendments that had been passed in Committee. It was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, who was then the Secretary of State dealing with the Bill, that it might be difficult for a company to reclaim funds from a political party if shareholders decided against making that particular contribution. Although I do not believe that that was a serious defect—because if there is a majority against a given political contribution there is an equal majority to instruct the board of directors not to make political contributions of that nature in the future—nevertheless my Amendments Nos. 2A and 14A seek to remove that possible defect.
552
The present system is set out in the Companies Act 1985. It is that political contributions and charitable contributions have to be reported, over a certain amount, in the director's report and the director's report has to be submitted to shareholders along with the accounts. The report and the accounts are approved of or disapproved of by shareholders in ordinary resolution.
The system that we have proposed would single out political contributions in such a manner that shareholders would be able to vote before the contribution was made, whether or not they wished it to be made. The arguments against this which have been deployed both in this House and in another place seem to me to be as follows. First, shareholders can talk to directors. That is an argument that has been advanced; that they can write to directors, that directors are reasonable chaps and if a shareholder writes to a director he will certainly take notice of that. I know of many people who have written to directors and talked to directors and I am afraid not much notice has been taken.
The second argument is that shareholders can pass an ordinary resolution instructing directors not to do this, that or thus. Again that is true in theory, but is it truly possible in practice, because 60 per cent. of all equities are held by institutional shareholders? Institutional shareholders do not move such resolutions. Pension funds, unit trusts and investment trusts do not make those sorts of initiatives. They are passive investors unless they are required to take a view, which would be the case if my proposal were to be accepted.
The third argument is that if shareholders do not like the political contributions made by their company they can sell their shares. That seems to me to be a bizarre argument since a shareholder does not necessarily invest in a company simply because it does or does not make contributions to a given political party. Shareholders do not have the right that trade union members have to contract out and say, "I want to be a member of this organisation and a full participating member, but I do not want to have anything to do with political contributions". That, therefore, seems to be an odd argument.
The last argument deployed in another place was that the directors should decide what is in the best interests of the company. That may be so, but directors are under a responsibility to decide according to the memorandum and articles of association of their companies. By definition, political contributions cannot be commercial because if they are commercial then, my goodness me, we have much more of a problem than I thought we had. They may be designed to get a knighthood for the chairman of a company, but they cannot be designed to get a contract from the Conservative Government—at least I hope they cannot.
Assuming, therefore, that these are not commercial decisions—the Companies Act 1985 makes clear why there is a separation—the directors can only decide what is in the best interests of the company by reference to the task that is laid on them in the articles of association of the company. They cannot spend money on a project because they

553
happen to feel it is in the best interests of their company. They cannot spend money on their local hospital, on their local sewers—whatever it might be—simply because they think it might be a good thing for the company.
In all the debates that have taken place on these amendments I have not heard any serious arguments against them. The arguments in favour seem to me to be very strong. First, there is the argument of transparency. At least if shareholders are given the opportunity to vote prior to contribution everybody knows that the shareholders agree to their funds being used in that manner. There can be no difficulty and no problem. In support of that—I am trying to help the Conservative Party—I quote from Charter News, which is published by the Charter Movement, which I understand supports the Conservative Party. It says:
Over 90 per cent. of the Party's income in 1987–88 came from donations. No information is given in the accounts about these donations, which makes it all too easy for our political opponents to allege improprieties, which it is then impossible for Conservative supporters to counter".
The first argument in favour of my amendment is that it would help the Conservative Party to clean up its act. The second argument is that it would be popular. According to a MORI poll, 82 per cent. of those interviewed said that they would favour greater shareholder participation in the decision to make political contributions. The third argument is that it would make it easier for boards of directors. There would no longer be any question of smoke-filled rooms or lunches in Smith Square, or wherever it might be, to ask for funds. It would all be out in the open. The board of directors would say, "This is what we propose and if shareholders like it they can have it. If shareholders do not like it they may not have it".
Lastly, it would encourage shareholder democracy, to which I thought the party opposite was committed. It would encourage shareholders taking a positive decision that they wanted their money spent in a particular manner.
It is not often that I personally and my party wish to challenge the decisions of the Commons in Commons amendments, because we generally subscribe to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that the elected House should have supremacy and that amendments, if they are passed by another place, should have earnest attention and, we hope, the agreement of your Lordships. But in this case I am not reluctant to press for your Lordships to disagree with the Commons amendment because however parties are to be funded the system must be fair and must be seen to be fair. Giving other people's money to finance political parties cannot be fair unless the other people agree in advance that that should be so. That is the nub of it. It is as simple as that. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Williams of Elvel.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, when your Lordships' House—I think with a sigh—discussed
554
this matter for the first time as long ago as 30th January, I was the only speaker, other than my noble friend the Minister, against the amendment. I have not lacked kind friends to say that that is the explanation of the carrying of the amendment.
I have been following this issue with some interest ever since. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, on introducing a new argument at this stage. That is in itself a very remarkable achievement. He introduced the argument that this would be a means of helping the Conservative Party. To his credit he said that without a smile on his face. The noble Lord seems to make an enormous mountain out of what is, from the point of view of practically every company, a molehill. The contributions have not always been by way of subscription to the Conservative Party. Some companies in recent years, however misguidedly, have contributed to the parties below the Gangway on the other side.
When these contributions are made they are absolutely trivial in proportion to the revenues and accounts of the company concerned. I speak as one who has served on a great many boards of directors and I have also been the chairman of one or two companies. Contributions are made because it is thought by the board, rightly or wrongly, either that it is in the interests of the company that a particular political party should prevail or sometimes because it is equally strongly thought that it would be disastrous for that company if another political party prevailed. In other words, it is a judgment similar to innumerable others which boards of directors have to make as to what is in the interests of their company.
That is the basis for the decision, as it is of all the hundreds of other decisions which fall to be made by the board of directors of a company. Yet it is this one generally financially quite trivial item that noble Lords opposite and their honourable friends in another place have sought to pick out and subject to very peculiar and special treatment. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, did not even spell out fully what that treatment was. The amendment which another place has rejected introduced the rule that the authorisation of a political contribution should not be included in the general report and accounts of the company, but should be the subject matter of a special resolution taken at the annual general meeting separately from all the other expenditures of the company. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may correct the noble Lord: it is not a special resolution but just an ordinary resolution.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am much obliged. In the technical and commercial sense it is not a special resolution, but it is a separate resolution and, as the noble Lord knows, that is the point. It is separate from the whole general motion that the report and accounts be adopted.
This procedure would give the matter a peculiar and special importance. When dealing with the affairs of a company whose expenditure runs into tens of millions of pounds, to solemnly hold up the

555
annual general meeting with a resolution authorising a donation of £250 to a political party is really wholly disproportionate and is apt to give an impression of undue importance to this one item of expenditure.
The noble Lord said that such a contribution was outside the normal expenditures of the company. So are gifts to charities and no amendment has been put forward to apply this special treatment to such contributions. There are also contributions to trade associations, and no suggestion has been made here of a separate resolution. Only party political contributions are singled out. Frankly, one would be very naive if it were not perfectly obvious to every one of your Lordships why that has been done and what is the reality of the feeling behind the proposal.
This elaborate treatment would introduce one area of practical difficulty in the case of a board of a company that desired to make a political contribution when a general election has been announced. Unless that general election were announced a little time before the annual general meeting, the board would have no power to make a contribution at the material time when such a contribution could be of significance; namely, in the immediate pre-election period. That would be not a wholly accidental restriction, but quite a serious one, on the rights and capacity of the board to make that contribution.
The noble Lord referred to the position of the shareholders. Under the present procedure they can question and object to political contributions being made. The shareholders can speak at the annual general meeting and, if they so desire, they can put forward proposals to cancel the contribution. It is not only that the making of a contribution is disclosed at the annual general meeting, because under the present law it is put into the annual report and accounts which are circulated well in advance of the annual general meeting, as the noble Lord knows. Therefore any shareholder who wishes to object to this payment has the opportunity to consider it, to discuss it with others of like mind and, if necessary, raise the question at the annual general meeting.
I anticipate the noble Lord because he will say that the shareholders will not go to the extent of seeking to reject the motion that the report and accounts be adopted. Of course they will not. The noble Lord has experience of business and he knows perfectly well that any board which knew that a substantial number of shareholders was unhappy about this or any other expenditure would pay very serious attention to that situation.
I come back to the fact that, though the board will pay very serious attention to the matter, it still has responsibility for the wellbeing of the company. I ask the House and the noble Lord opposite to consider the position of a board which believes that the declared policy of a political party would be disastrous for the company. Is the noble Lord really suggesting that the board is wrong in taking such steps as it can by way of a political contribution to avert the coming into power or the defeat of a government, where the consequences would be disastrous to the company for which the board is responsible?
556
Placed in that position himself I cannot believe that the noble Lord would do other than say that, on the facts, the success of one political party or the other is of major importance to the company and therefore the company must support it. Therefore, this apparently small amendment involves eroding in one particular the clear general responsibility of members of a board of directors for the wellbeing of the company.
The noble Lord referred to the different treatment of trades unions from the point of view of political contributions. It is a totally different system. A ballot has to be taken and then for ten years a political fund can operate very largely at the discretion of the executive of the union. There is the distinction, in the case of trades union contributions to the Labour Party, that in proportion to the resources of the unions they are very much larger than any political contribution made by a company in relation to the resources of that company.
There is also the point, which was made on a previous occasion but never answered, that if a shareholder passionately disagrees with the board's decision to contribute to a political party, he can sell his shares and buy some others. Indeed, shareholders sometimes do that. Some shareholders who disapprove of a company's dealings in, for example, South Africa, have done precisely that, whether misguidedly or not, but honourably and honestly. Equally, if a shareholder is seriously upset because a £100 million company gives £500 to the Conservative Party, he is perfectly free to sell his shares and invest in a company that does not.
The same is by no means wholly true of members of a trade union. Either there is a closed shop, though mercifully that has been diminished as a result of the sensible measures of this Government in recent years, or there is a strong pressure in many cases and in many employments for a worker to remain in his union. Therefore he has not anything like the same freedom and discretion that a shareholder has to clear out from a body of whose actions he disapproves. It is a false argument to suggest that, because of legislation some years ago to deal with the political contributions of trade unions, one should introduce a measure of this kind.
It is wholly disproportionate to the importance of the matter to companies. It would involve some erosion of a director's responsibility. On the question of timing, it could involve considerable inconveniences in a general election year. I hope therefore that noble Lords, having discussed the matter and having no doubt speculated in their own minds as to the motives and reasons behind the amendment, will reject it.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he comment on what appears to be a parallel? If I understand him correctly, he seems to omit it as the logical conclusion of his argument. He knows that the Government compelled trade unions to have ballots about the establishment of political funds. Most contributions were going to the Labour Party. The Government did that because they felt quite sure that there would be a change. If I follow the noble Lord correctly, the

557
board of directors has the responsibility for deciding whether a contribution should be made to a political party. Does he not feel that there is a parallel between the national executive of a union and a board of directors in that respect? After all, the national executive of a union deals with 99·9 per cent. of a union's business, though there has to be a ballot for a strike. Is there not a parallel between the work of the national executive in this respect and a company's board of directors?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the proposal in this amendment is quite distinct and different from the state of the law as regards political contributions to trade unions. It does not propose the same arrangements as Parliament has laid down for trade unions. I do not wish to weary the House with my next point because I spent a little time on it during the course of my speech. A union has to have a ballot if it is to have a political fund. But having succeeded in a ballot to establish such a fund, for 10 years afterwards political contributions can be and are made, and can be and are made on a much larger scale in proportion than political contributions are made by companies. Therefore there is no comparison. These are totally different situations. There is also the point—I repeat it if the noble Lord did not take it on board—that, whereas in many cases a member of a trade union cannot without sacrificing his job leave a union of whose policy in this respect he disapproves, shareholders can.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, on these Benches we strongly support the amendment so ably and comprehensively moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I shall be brief as I was in supporting similar amendments at earlier stages of the Bill. For the purposes of brevity I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will forgive me if I do not follow him in his historical account of ages past. I say to him with the greatest respect that in his speech he clearly enunciated fly-blown phylacteries of an age that is past.
We must come up to date in these matters. Under this Government there has been a great extension of share ownership and this course is bound to continue. Consequently, responsibilities must arise from that course, responsibilities which did not arise so clearly in the past. Shareholders should now be allowed to have their say in how funds are spent by their boards of directors when those funds are being used for other than commercial matters.
Party political contributions, whatever the noble Lord says, are clearly a special case in this age of shareholder democracy. It is therefore bordering on being contrary to public policy that companies should be permitted to make contributions for political purposes to whatever party—without shareholders having the right to consider the matter carefully and clearly in a specific resolution before that political contribution is made. It is no use the noble Lord saying that shareholders can come along and complain. That is not sufficient. All we ask is that in order to bring company law up to date shareholders should be allowed to consider a specific resolution before a political contribution is made.
558
I submit that the proposals are simple and fair. Above all, they are necessary to bring the law up to date.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, on resisting on this occasion the temptation to turn this debate into a full-scale political one. He was extremely generous in offering the Conservative Party the opportunity to clean up its act. I return the compliment and, equally generously, offer the Labour Party the opportunity to clean up its act by turning down the trade union contributions that it receives. They are far larger than any contributions companies receive.
I do not intend to make a political speech. It is not necessary. A number of technical and practical points arise from the amendments to which I should like to draw the House's attention. The first point is an extremely technical one. It relates to the date of the annual general meeting of the company in which the special resolution is to be put before the shareholders and the financial year of the company itself. In many companies these will not coincide. Even if it were possible to achieve a completely democratic decision from the shareholders at the annual general meeting, it might be nearly a year before that decision was implemented. Anything might have happened in order to change their minds, because it would no longer be a retrospective decision. That is just one technical difficulty.
I now turn to what I see as an insurmountable practical obstacle to the stated objective of these amendments; namely, to widen shareholders' democractic power. There has been a great extension of share ownership under this Government. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, was kind and generous enough, once again, to pay tribute to this factor on the first day of the Committee in this Chamber.
Of course there is much wider share ownership under this Government, but, I fear, not enough for the purposes of these amendments. I say that because what they overlook, but what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has not overlooked, is that whereas it is perfectly practical and possible to circulate separate resolutions before an annual general meeting and to get the proxies returned in good time as well as taking account of the views of those shareholders who actually attend the meeting, the fact is—I personally regret this—as the noble Lord so rightly said, a very substantial shareholding will often be in the hands of the institutions. It is they who will vote, stating their case, as the noble Lord said, not on behalf of their investors but on behalf of their contributors, but without consulting them and without knowing what are their views on the matter.
Therefore where are we as regards shareholders' democracy if that is to be the case and if a substantial vote is to be placed without any consultation? I do not think that travelling down that track will get us very far. Moreover, there may be a predator with a substantial shareholding who just wants to make things difficult for the board and who has therefore voted either for or against a political contribution and who held a substantial enough shareholding to

559
make sufficient waves so that the board felt it had to take note of such votes.
There is another objection to these amendments of equal importance. For example, why has the noble Lord stopped at extending the shareholders' democracy to political contributions? What about all the other political matters to which my noble friend referred? What about the people who feel most strongly about their company's practices in relation to environmental matters, to South Africa and to animal experimentation? Would they want separate resolutions on each of those items at an annual general meeting? They may consider that such issues were as important as, if not more important than, political contributions. They would therefore want separate resolutions on each of the issues.
Thank goodness, in our democracy people with strong feelings on any matters, including political contributions, can influence companies most effectively. The two factors which will influence a company most are the investors who will not buy its shares and the consumers who will not buy its goods. That will influence companies more than any resolution which is passed at an annual general meeting.
But above all those considerations is the one to which my noble friend referred. It is a substantial one. It is the responsibility of the directors and the board to run the company in the best interests of the company and its shareholders. They must do so in their judgment. The responsibility is theirs and if they fail in their duty they will have to answer for it.
Companies cannot be run by referenda any more than can countries. These amendments, if carried, will not achieve their stated objective for the practical reasons which I have given. I urge your Lordships to resist them.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, there have been some remarkable descriptions of what the party opposite considers to be shareholding democracy. Shareholding—yes; but where is the democracy? Neither the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, nor the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, said anything about the democratic rights of shareholders. That is something about which the party opposite has boasted. It is accorded to the public by widening, as we have agreed, the number of shareholders in our community. What relationship has the holding of shares to the determination of company policy? Is that not the nub of democracy?
In this amendment, which follows along the lines of an amendment which was passed previously in this House, we are stating that democracy involves the shareholders having the right to play a part in influencing company policy before—not after—it is put into operation. When the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, brushes aside the comparison with the position in the trade unions, he obviously does not know his trade unions. He said that a trade unionist who goes along to a meeting and takes part
560
in a ballot for a political levy cannot then get out of paying such levy. Has the noble Lord never heard of opting out?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene at this point. I said absolutely nothing of the sort suggested by the noble Lord. I rather resent his trying to attribute such a foolish remark to me. I ask him to refer to Hansard.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am sorry, but according to the noble Lord the difference between a shareholder and a trade union is that whereas the shareholder can move his shares to another company the trade union member is unable to get out of paying the political levy if he does not like it. However, he is entitled to do so. There has been a system of contracting out since 1913. Any trade union member who disapproves of the political levy is fully entitled to refuse to pay it. That has been trade union law since 1913. Therefore, whether or not the noble Lord considers the accusation I made to be a foolish suggestion, that is the full implication of what he said regarding the comparison between shareholders and trade union members.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the House, but the noble Lord persists in misrepresenting me. I said nothing about contracting out. I said that whereas a shareholder could sell his shares and get out, in many cases a trade unionist could not leave the union, however much he disapproved of what it was doing, because that might endanger his job. Has the noble Lord got the point now?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Yes, my Lords. I got the point that the noble Lord did not mention contracting out. He did not do so because that would destroy his case. It is not a question of moving from one union to another. The member of the trade union is fully entitled to refuse to pay a political levy. The member would be concerned about the political levy. However, he would still keep his job and his membership of the union; but he would not have to pay the political levy. The shareholder, on the other hand, if he stays within the company—and many shareholders will wish to remain within the company for reasons quite different from political levies—is compelled to contribute to the political levy because the directors have decided that the company shall pay such a levy.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, expressed some surprise that my noble friend Lord Williams should suggest that this amendment would be good for the Conservative Party. It would. But much more important, it would be good for the political health of this country. That is a non-party political statement. Moreover, it is supported by members of the party opposite. I shall prove my point presently.
I am not certain that I agree completely with my noble friend Lord Williams. He said, in answer to the continued claim from the opposite side of the House that directors have the responsibility of making decisions for their company, that the political levy has no commercial significance. It

561
depends upon how one defines "commercial". It is commercial interest when a government remove the top 20 per cent. of income tax. It is a commercial interest for those who benefit from having that tax removed. It is a commercial interest when company directors and executives see their remuneration increased by over 20 per cent. in a year when the Government are trying to keep wage claims down below the 7 to 8 per cent. rate of inflation. That is a commercial interest for those involved—in that case, the directors.
Is the party opposite then saying that the directors should be left in charge of company policy with respect to the political support that that company gives to different political parties; that the directors have no interest; that they are interested only in the companies' welfare? They have a personal interest in government policy, and that is not good for this country's political health. That has been commented upon from all sides and from no side. It is not good because, whether it is true or not, that is what the public perceives to be happening. What the public perceives is happening with the amendment is that the Government have double standards.
Under the 1984 law, the Government insist that trade unions ballot as to whether there should be a political fund but that companies should not be forced to follow the lines laid down by the shareholders with regard to political funds. That perception by the public is bad for this country's political health. It is bad when those political donations are made furtively and in a murky way through British United Industrialists or the river companies. It is far better for the Conservative Party and the country's political health for companies to decide as trade unions do.
The Government thought that they were undermining the Labour Party when they enforced the ballot, but they were not. They strengthened the Labour Party. If it is confident, the Conservative Party will see that open debate and decision by shareholders will be in its own interests and, as I say and what is much more important, in the interests of this country's political health. That is not just a partisan view. It was put forward in another place by the honourable Member for Aldridge-Brownhills who said, and I quote—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
4 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord but I am afraid that he is out of order in quoting a Back-Bench Member of another place.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, all right, then I shall paraphrase. The honourable Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said in another place that it would look partisan if rules and regulations were imposed by the Government on the Government's political opponents which would not apply to the government party. Later in the same speech he addressed himself to the Conservative Party and said that it was important that it should be seen to be fair-minded. He warned the Government of the
562
danger that, by rejecting the measure that we had passed here, they would be seen to be unfair and that the public perception would be that the Conservative Party had become so particular in that affair that all it wanted was to reinforce its own finances.
That view was repeated in the debate in another place. So I suggest to those Members of the House who query whether my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel was being sincere when he said that the amendment was good for the Conservative Party that there are members of their own party who think the same. There are many of us who think that the measure would be good for the cleanliness of British politics, and that only when it is seen that Parliament is using the same set of values for companies that support the Conservative Party as it uses for trade unions that support the Labour Party will the public consider that the Government are acting fairly and in a non-partisan way.
The alternative is public funding for political parties on both sides or, as was pointed out by the honourable Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, the Conservative Party will be seen to be the party of big business receiving underhand handouts, whereas the Labour Party, although it obtains much of its finance from the trade union movement, does so above board with the full consent of the members of those unions. Such consent is essential if we are to talk with any sincerity of a shareholding democracy. It is essential that the rules should apply also to company shareholders.
Lord Chelmer: My Lords, I shall refer briefly to the last remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, about the public funding of political parties. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will remember that about 12 years ago he was chairman of a committee set up by Parliament to consider that point. I was then treasurer of the Conservative Party. We presented to the committee a complete breakdown of our income. It might put this debate into some perspective if one recalls that at that date—I feel sure now, too—about two-thirds of our party's income came from private subscriptions or ladies doing bring-and-buy sales and all those other worthy things one does to raise money. One-third came from corporate gifts.
One should bear those figures in mind when considering the proportion of its income which the Labour Party produces and that which it receives from the trade unions. One should consider them more carefully before being over-impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he tell the House how he knows those figures when the Conservative Party does not publish a breakdown of its finances?
Lord Chelmer: My Lords, I believe that I explained to the noble Lord that we openly produced the figures to the committee.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, there is a great sense of unreality about the debate. The truth of the matter is that of course the Conservative Party wants to

563
keep things as they are because they bring it in a great deal of money. I do not blame any political party for wanting to obtain a great deal of money. I should like a lot of money for my political party but we do not get it. Perhaps that is why I feel rather strongly about what is going on at present.
All this arguing about the detail of how it is done and how practical or unpractical it is is so much pie in the sky, if I may use a rather unparliamentary phrase. The Conservatives want the money, of course they do. We on these Benches, no doubt partly because we do not get the money, think that that is a bad way of doing things. We thought and still think that the trade union contributions to the Labour Party are not particularly healthy either. The members have a right to contract out, that is perfectly true. For myself, I would rather they could contract in since it would give members a much better opportunity of not subscribing if they did not wish to do so.
This is an unhealthy way of financing both the parties. We all know that to be true. The Conservatives want to hang on to it because they want the money. We think that they ought not to have it and fund-raising ought to be carried out in a more democratic way. I shall repeat, before somebody else does, that that is in part no doubt because we do not obtain it.
For those reasons I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I would do so with more enthusiasm if he believed in contracting in instead of contracting out, but as the lesser of the two evils on this occasion, I support the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord McAlpine of West Green: My Lords, as treasurer of the Conservative Party, I have an obvious interest in this debate which I am happy to declare to your Lordships. I believe that the Opposition's proposals are not compatible with the normal principles of company law.
It would be absurd to require shareholders at their annual general meetings to vote for the disbursement of sums of money so insignificant in comparison with the turnover of their businesses. It would also conflict with the directors' freedom to run companies in the interests of the shareholders. Management actions can already be questioned at a company's annual general meeting.
The 1967 Companies Act makes such questions as political donations easier by requiring that companies identify their political donations. That seems to me to be a sensible arrangement. Surely no serious and detached observer of British company law can believe that it needs any amendment in this area. I wish to address the question of why a measure so obviously incompatible with the principles of company law should be put forward at all. With respect, is it not a little disingenuous for the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to claim that his proposals are driven by a high-minded desire to improve company law?
The real motives seem to lie elsewhere. First, the measure is a response to the legislation passed in
564
1984 requiring trade unionists to vote on the political levy for the Labour Party. Secondly, it is a step towards state funding of political parties. Thirdly, it arises from a series of mischievous reports on Conservative Party fund-raising.
I hope that your Lordships will permit me to consider each of these arguments briefly in turn. It may appeal to the fair-minded instincts of noble Lords to assert that the Labour Party depends for its funds on trade unions, that the Conservative Party depends in the same way on big companies and that if the law on trade union political levies was changed in 1984, so company law should also be changed.
However, such apparent even-handedness is an illusion. For most trade unionists the political levy is large in relation to the value of the benefits they receive from their trade unions. A political levy totalling 5 per cent. of a member's contribution is not unusual. By contrast, if a company makes a donation to the Conservative Party, it is likely to be trivial in relation to the shareholders' dividends, perhaps 10p for every £100 of dividend or 0·1 per cent. of the dividend.
Trade unions have an explicit constitutional position in the Labour Party. Their established role as the paymasters of the Labour Party is matched by their power as king-makers, electing the leader and voting on policy at conference. We are proud that companies have no such role in the Conservative Party. I do not therefore believe that there is any comparison between the measures in the 1984 Trade Union Act on political levy and company contributions to the Conservative Party.
I now turn to the second concern which may be driving those who support this measure—a desire to see state funding for political parties. If the Opposition's proposals were ever passed, and if they succeeded in their objective of reducing the flow of company donations to the Conservative Party, it would move us one step closer to state funding for political parties. We have always been opposed to that and would remain so, whatever the financial circumstances of the Conservative Party. However, the fact is that the Labour Party's proposal would put such an idea back on the political agenda. We should not find ourselves being pushed towards it by this measure, cynically tacked on to a Bill intended for quite another purpose.
Thirdly, I wish to reject as strongly as possible the disgraceful slurs cast on Conservative finances in another place. It shocked me that Labour spokesmen debating this measure referred to a murky and somewhat grubby relationship between the companies and the Conservative Party, great subterfuges and clandestine procedures. These are outrageous allegations, and I hope that nobody will be moved to support this ill-conceived clause as a result of such false charges.
We in the Conservative Party know that our financial arrangements must be clear and above board, as anything else would damage our party's reputation. We scrupulously follow all our obligations on disclosure of information. We conscientiously publish audited accounts of the party every year.

565
One charge is that the so-called river companies were set up after the war as some sort of cover for fund-raising operations. Not so, my Lords; not so. They were established because it was necessary to have a proper corporate framework to enable people to bequeath money to the party in their wills without fear of challenge. They were also necessary for the party to hold leases or own property. That is why the river companies were set up. To claim that it was a secret operation is frankly rubbish. The details were released to the press by Central Office and reported by the Daily Telegraph when the companies were originally set up in 1949. The river companies have always filed their annual audited accounts at Companies House, as they were obliged to do.
Another charge is that the Conservative Party is somehow encouraging companies to hide the true scale of their donations. The Labour Party research department claimed to have identified company donations of about £5·75 million, as against £15 million total party income during 1987. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the Labour Party research department's figures but the Companies Act is quite clear on the obligation to reveal company donations.
Of course we also receive funds from many tens of thousands of people from all over the country. They support us because they believe that it is essential that the Conservative Government continue to remain in power. We have not and will not disclose the names of those people. If they wish to announce that they are supporters of the Conservative Party and indicate how much they have given to the party, that is entirely up to them. The Opposition are in such a muddle that they claim that British United Industrialists is some sort of Tory front organisation. It is not; absolutely it is not. It is an independent organisation with a charter, supporting parties and organisations that believe in free enterprise.
The Opposition think that Aims of Industry is a cover for Tory Party donations. It is not. It is an independent pressure group and think-tank. What is more, the Opposition claim that our bank account called the Free Enterprise Account is some sort of special concealed fund. It is not. It is the name on our cheque book. It stands there because free enterprise is what the Government stand for. It is what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister stands for.
We are clearly committed to the creating of conditions in which business can thrive and we can all become more prosperous. Many businessmen who have seen their companies grow and prosper during the past 10 years know that this is due to the economic and industrial policies of this Government. That is why they give money to the Conservative Party. They are serving the interests of their shareholders and their employees and they are quite right to do so.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, if there were any members of the parliaments of Europe listening to our debate, they would think that we were still in the primary stage of our political development. I am glad that reference has been made to the committee of which I had the honour to
566
be chairman—alas, now 20 years ago—which was formed to study in depth for the first and last time the financing of our political parties. Where do our political parties get their money from? How do they get it? Is it desirable that they should continue to be financed in that way? We produced a report. It was not a unanimous one, but I doubt whether anyone on the committee was satisfied with what was discovered about the financing of our political parties, whether from one side of industry or the other.
In regard to my first comment, when we travelled round Europe to find out what other countries were doing concerning the financing of their political parties, speaking from memory I believe we failed to discover any country whose activities could give rise to such a debate as this. Corporate donations to political parties in Europe are banned, and ours should be too. In West Germany it was found that tax-deductible contributions to political parties by industry had become so unhealthy an influence in the financing of politics generally that they were banned altogether in return for a measure of state aid to all political parties which qualified for a certain measure of public support.
When we went to Austria we discovered that the Austrians had banned a practice which had long been established there apparently, whereby government contractors always made by tradition a donation to the governing party. The Austrians banned those donations in return for state aid to their political parties. We are just simply out of date. We are discussing the microscopic end of a thoroughly ramshackle piece of machinery. Financing our political parties in this way cannot be justified on any grounds whatsoever. For one thing it perpetuates the class and industrial division between one section of the community and another, as the donations are financed by two enormous sectional interests: the boss class on one side and the worker class on the other.
I know that it is too late in this long study of this long Bill to begin to go back to first principles. We have an amendment in front of us. We are fiddling about with this matter and playing tiddly-winks without looking at the major rules of the game. We have a system now which fails to give any public support to new elements in our political organisation. It is all left, so to speak, to the voluntary effort. All money going into political parties whether from trade unions or from industry is tainted money. It all springs from self-interest. It is not there in the national interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to the fact that a particular political party might best serve the interests of a company and that a company may consider whether there was anything in the programmes of other political parties which might harm its interests. It is a matter of putting one's money where one's interests lie. The trade unions do the same. But who will say that the political levy can be justified? It is corrupt. It is as corrupt as all the rest of the financing of our political parties for the simple reason that it is organised and canvassed for. It certainly has a measure of control on the trade union side but very little on the company side.

567
However, it is not good going on like this. If we are to face the future in Europe I believe that we must bring some of our political and parliamentary institutions up to date. It is astonishing how backward we are. The report that we produced, challenging as it was for the majority, aroused no interest in the political parties. As far as I recall, there has been no debate on the report in either House. No one wanted to touch it. They were all afraid that if they began to give public money to political parties, the public would say, "Ah, such and such a party is going to use public money to finance its politics". But the proper financing of political parties goes to the very root of our parliamentary democracy.
Some assistance should be provided to political parties apart from the large sums of money they obtain from particular sources. Who is studying the present financing of some of our smaller political parties at this moment? There are indications of substantial support coming from one quarter. That is thoroughly unhealthy, as the noble Baroness said a moment or two ago. However, we must get on with the amendment.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I know that noble Lords opposite will dodge this subject whenever it is raised. Whenever an opportunity occurs, they try to get on with the tiddly-winks. That is what we are doing again this afternoon. From my point of view, it is not of profound importance whether we stick to what is in the Bill or whether we put something else in its place. That is the smallest beer in relation to the major issue of who is financing our politics. This measure is one little nudge forward to get one little bit more democracy into the method of financing political parties from public companies when we should not receive money from that source of vested interest at all.
I support the amendment moved by my noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench because it is a little nudge forward. However, that is all it is. One day, however, we shall come round to this matter because I do not believe we can continue financing political parties in the way we do, especially when we are trying to free trade unions on one hand and companies on the other from the incubus of being expected to support the political parties which may or may not satisfy the aspirations of their members.
I thank noble Lords for listening to a lecture. Why is it that I have to try to precipitate our debates into the future, look at the time ahead, look at where we are going and how we are going to fulfil our obligations in Europe? Can the House not find someone younger to do that?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have two interests to declare this afternoon. First, I wish to say that I have the honour to be the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party. For that reason alone I doubt whether I would have intervened in your Lordships' deliberations this afternoon. However, I have a second interest which I believe overrides that.
568
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has already this afternoon confessed that these days he has difficulty in recognising noble Lords opposite. I should remind him that until a few months ago I had the privilege to sit where my noble friend the Minister sits now. During that time I was able to conclude our first major review of company law since the Companies Act 1981. That was a very full review. This Bill embodies the results of that review and contains, for example, Community directives that impinge on company law. It amends the law relating to insolvency, insurance and building societies. It even covers insider dealing. It is a very serious measure, and one that in its present shape is welcomed by all in industry.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has nothing to do with this serious review of company law. It is, I fear, only a mischievous attempt to gain party political advantage and is not motivated by any desire to improve the workings of a company. Indeed, if it were carried out, it would make the conduct of business more difficult and not less. The procedure which the noble Lord proposes for voting at an annual general meeting to give retrospective approval to political donations would create no more than a time-wasting model.
The whole concept of part of a directors' report being sent to shareholders and to the annual general meeting without the directors having signed it is, to say the least, curious. It is hardly surprising that the advocates of this rather silly measure have tied themselves into knots because it conflicts with the existing principles and practices of our company law. Directors must be free to manage companies in the interests of their shareholders. That is the clear principle on which our whole system of company law is based. Shareholders must have the information that enables them to question the performance of directors. That is why we have accounts and that is why earlier companies legislation specified that information on charitable and political giving should be specified, and it is on each occasion. But if we have to start identifying individual commercial transactions, no matter how small, then we are on the edge of a slippery slope. We shall end with the directors losing their power to act commercially in the interests of their shareholders. The whole of our company law is based on the differing roles played by shareholders and by directors. Let us not, pray, for some shortsighted political gain, confuse the two and undermine the commercial structure on which the wealth of this country is based.
4.30. p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as your Lordships may recall, the amendments that were originally accepted by this House would require that where a political donation was disclosed in the directors' report, that part of the report should not be signed, but should be put to the general meeting retrospectively for approval by ordinary resolution. We made clear our opposition to the original amendments at the time and we accordingly supported the back-bench amendment in another place which resulted in their reversal.

569
Our reasons for taking this position are quite straightforward. The existing Companies Acts have required companies since 1967 to disclose in the directors' report any gifts of money for political purposes that exceed a specified sum, currently £200. Both the amount of the donation and the name of the recipient must be shown. The directors' report of course has to be sent to shareholders before the company's general meeting.
Shareholders who are concerned at the nature or scale of such donations can raise the subject in the discussion of the accounts at the annual general meeting. Moreover, shareholders have the right to put an ordinary resolution to the general meeting under the normal procedures to give voice to any worries that they may have on the subject. The Government think that these existing safeguards of the shareholders' interests are wholly adequate. If shareholders do not want their company donating money to political parties, they have the chance to say so at the annual general meeting.
As I have said, we believe that these arrangements are adequate. Accordingly, we do not agree with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I hope that the House will agree to the amendments proposed by the other place.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been a very lengthy debate but, as I remember, the last time we discussed the subject there was a fairly short debate and it seemed sensible for us now to go over this topic in some detail. I must say at the outset of my wind-up that, in essence, I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said. There can be arguments technically one way or the other, but ultimately—I see the faces ranged opposite me, and I congratulate the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip on his efforts—I can understand that it is in the interests of the Conservative Party that these amendments that I am proposing should not go through.
On the technical points, if I may answer these, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and a number of other noble Lords made the point that the directors should manage a company in the best interest of their shareholders, their workforce and others in accordance with the Companies Act. That is true, as I said in my opening speech, provided the directors stick to the memorandum and articles of association.
Certain companies have had votes on political contributions; for example, the Rank Organisation had a vote and Marks and Spencer and British and Commonwealth also had a vote. I do not remember the directors of those companies saying that they were in any way derogating their responsibilities of managing the companies commercially in the interests of their shareholders. So that is not a very forceful argument.
So far as the political levy is concerned —I think there has been an exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and my noble friend Lord Hatch—it seems to me perfectly clear that trade unionists can contract out of the political levy. Shareholders cannot contract out of political
570
donations. That is the law as it stands. So there is not a comparison between the two.
The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, raised what I thought was one of the most interesting technical subjects about the date of the AGM. I do not think it is a very serious point—
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: Oh!
Lord Williams of Elvel: I will argue about that, if that is what the noble Baroness wants, but I shall have to go on for 10 minutes; I know about dates of AGMs. But the argument is about institutional investors and whether they would have the opportunity to consult their trustees. Once the question is put they would have to consult their trustees, and the trustees of the institutions would have to take a view. I remind the noble Baroness that many pension funds have trade union trustees and it would be very interesting to see, were the question put, which way the trustees of pension funds would instruct their managers to vote. They might decide that they all wanted to give money to the Conservative Party. Alternatively, they might not. That would introduce a very important element of democratisation of institutional investors. I believe that institutional managers should contact their trustees more often, and trustees should consult their members. I am all in favour of that.
In, I thought, a slightly defensive manner, the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, took us through the river companies and the other great things that the Conservative Party stands for. I was not making the points that he was trying to answer. The only point I would make is that I do not think the amendments I am proposing are contrary to company law. The legal advice I have had does not indicate that they are. They are perfectly in order and perfectly consonant with existing company law and could be incorporated quite easily into the Companies Act.
So far as other contributions are concerned, my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby came back to the very important study which he made, and talked about state funding. I see a certain amount of virtue in this. I would go a long way with what he said, because I believe we are very primitive in our funding of political parties at the moment. We shall have more to say on that as we get closer to the next general election.
Ultimately, may I assure the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, that I did recognise him, because I had the honour to stand opposite him when he was in his place as Secretary of State, and I remembered his features as he walked into the Chamber this afternoon. But I must say that I do not think his contribution today was up to the standard of the previous contributions he made when he was at that Dispatch Box. I hope that he will not mind my making that remark.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is right. The Conservative Party want the money and they think that the effect of these amendments might be to diminish the amount of money coming to the Conservative Party. If they vote against my amendment, then noble Lords will be demonstrating

571
the noble Baroness's argument that they have no serious interest in shareholder democracy or fairness or honourable behaviour. They will simply troop into the Lobby in blind obedience to their Whip, because the Conservative Party needs the money, and I hope that they will be suitably ashamed. My Lords, I beg to move.
4.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether this House do disagree with the commons in their Amendment no.1.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110; Not-Contents, 223.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Airedale, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Amherst, E.

Kearton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Attlee, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Aylestone, L.

Leatherland, L.

Banks, L.

Listowel, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Birk, B.

Blackstone, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brooks of Temorfa, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Meston, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mountevans, L.

Mulley, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Crook, L.

Oram, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Parry, L.

David, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Davies, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Diamond, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rochester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Falkender, B.

Seear, B.

Falkland, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shackleton, L.

Foot, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gallacher, L.

Soper, L.

Galpern, L.

Stallard, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stedman, B.

Glenamara, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grimond, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller]

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Walston, L.

Hughes, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Hunt, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wigoder, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jacques, L.

Willis, L.

Jay, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Jeger, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

572

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Goold, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gormanston, V.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Greenway, L.

Allerton, L.

Gridley, L.

Alport, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Annaly, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Arran, E.

Haig, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Astor, V.

Auckland, L.

Halifax, E.

Barber, L.

Halsbury, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Harlech, L.

Beloff, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Belstead, L.

Harvington, L.

Benson, L.

Havers, L.

Bessborough, E.

Henley, L.

Biddulph, L.

Hertford, M.

Birdwood, L.

Hesketh, L.

Blake, L.

Hives, L.

Bolton, L.

Holderness, L.

Borthwick, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hood, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hooper, B.

Braye, B.

Huntly, M.

Brentford, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Ingrow, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Joseph, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Caithness, E.

Kemsley, V.

Camden, M.

Kimball, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kimberley, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Knutsford, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnock, L.

Layton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Chelmer, L.

Liverpool, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Long, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lothian, M.

Cottesloe, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cowley, E.

Luke, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lurgan, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lyell, L.

Crickhowell, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Daventry, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

De Freyne, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Dilhorne, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Dundee, E.

Mancroft, L.

Eccles, V.

Manton, L.

Elibank, L.

Margadale, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Marley, L.

Elles, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Elton, L.

Middleton, L.

Erne, E.

Morris, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Mottistone, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Munster, E.

Forbes, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Forester, L.

Nelson, E.

Forte, L.

Norfolk, D.

Fortescue, E.

Norrie, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Onslow, E.

Gainford, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Orkney, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gisborough, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Peel, E.

573

Pender, L.

Southborough, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Stockton, E.

Polwarth, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Porritt, L.

Strange, B.

Portman, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Pym, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Quinton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Reay, L.

Redesdale, L.

Suffield, L.

Rees, L.

Swinfen, L.

Renton, L.

Swinton, E.

Renwick, L.

Terrington, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Teviot, L.

Rochdale, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rockley, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Rodney, L.

Thurlow, L.

Romney, E.

Torphichen, L.

Rootes, L.

Tranmire, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Sackville, L.

Ullswater, V.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Waldegrave, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Watkinson, V.

St. Davids, V.

Wedgwood, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Windlesham, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Wise, L.

Sandys, L.

Wolfson, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Shannon, E.

Wynford, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Young, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[Amendment No. 2A not moved.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out from 'Schedules' to end of line 4 on page 2.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clapham Junction Inquiry Report
4.49 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport on the Clapham Junction Inquiry Report. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the results of the inquiry
574
into the Clapham Junction rail disaster of December 1988.
"I am publishing today as a Command Paper the report by Sir Anthony Hidden on his investigation under the Regulation of Railways Act into the causes and circumstances of the accident.
"I know that I speak for the whole House in expressing my deepest sympathy for the relatives and friends of the 35 people who died as a result of the accident. Our sympathies go too to the many people who were injured, some of them seriously and some of whom are permanently disabled, and to the many others, both passengers and rescuers, who bear the mental scars of that harrowing day.
"Equally I speak for the whole House in paying tribute to the many people who gave unstintingly of their skills, courage and kindness that day; policemen, ambulancemen and firemen, doctors and nurses, railwaymen and local authority staff, and members of the public. As Sir Anthony Hidden comments, a deep debt of gratitude is owed to them all.
"Sir Anthony Hidden concludes that the accident was caused by faulty wiring work carried out on Sunday 27th November 1988 during a major investment programme to modernise signalling on the lines into Waterloo. That faulty work could and should have been discovered through routine checks, but the wiring was not checked and the fault was not found. During later resignalling work on Sunday 11th December a wire that should have been removed two weeks before was accidentally moved. This made an electrical connection into the Clapham Junction signal box which passed false messages to one of the signals on the main line into Waterloo.
"The investigation has revealed major defects in the way in which British Rail's Southern Region signalling and telecommunications department organised resignalling work and supervised and tested completed wiring. The report makes 93 recommendations. Some are directed towards preventing a recurrence of an accident of this type. Others are addressed to securing improvements in BR's management and organisational systems for safety. Others are directed to the emergency services; and some to the Government.
"I am asking BR to deal promptly with all the recommendations addressed to it and to report to me on its implementation within three months. Many of the recommendations are based on BR's suggestions or on the conclusions of BR's own internal inquiry. BR has already taken action to implement these, although in some cases Sir Anthony Hidden recommends faster implementation. In particular, BR is already committed to two important new developments —automatic train protection and the installation of cab radios.
"BR has anticipated some of the additional cost of implementing the report in its current spending plans. I have endorsed this provision in full. BR will need to consider what further expenditure will be required. I can assure the House that finance will not stand in the way of the implementation of the report.
"I have today written to the chairmen of London Regional Transport and the passenger transport executives asking them, where appropriate, to consider their own systems carefully in the light of the report, and to report to me on their proposals for implementing the relevant recommendations within three months.
"While the inquiry was sitting two further railway accidents took place: at Purley on 4th March 1989 and at Bellgrove two days later. Separate inquiries into those two accidents have been carried out by the Railway Inspectorate and the reports will be published in due course. At my predecessor's request, Sir Anthony Hidden and his team considered whether there were any common issues between the accidents. His report does not suggest that there was any single underlying cause. His wider recommendations were made in the light of all three accidents.
"As I have said, some of Sir Anthony Hidden's recommendations are addressed to the Government. The report recommends that railway legislation should be reviewed and the powers of the Railway Inspectorate widened and clarified. We will introduce the necessary legislation as soon as a suitable opportunity arises. Meanwhile, most of the changes can be implemented by administrative action. Where this has not already been done, I have asked that action should be taken urgently by my department and British Railways.
"The report asks me to ensure that the Railway Inspectorate is adequately staffed to implement the report. Additional inspectors are being recruited and their numbers will be expanded as necessary.
"The report recommends a thorough study of appraisal procedures for the safety elements of investment proposals. All investment submissions which come to me for approval already include a specific section on safety issues. My department will discuss with BR what further improvements can be made.
"The report asks the Government to ensure that BR is allocated sufficient frequencies to operate cab radios effectively. We have now allocated five new frequencies to BR and given it access to two others. This fully meets its requirements.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has considered the recommendations addressed to his department. He has already introduced a review of the health services' response to major incidents with a view to preparing revised guidelines. His department has accepted the remaining recommendations which affect it.
"I have considered Sir Anthony Hidden's recommendations on the costs of representation at the investigation and have accepted them in full.
"Finally, I am very grateful to Sir Anthony Hidden and his assessors for their thorough investigation and their clear and constructive report. I know that Sir Robert Reid and his board
576
are determined to make sure that the lessons of this tragedy are throughly learnt and properly implemented. The necessary action will have the fullest support of the Government."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating that very important Statement arising from a most tragic accident. At the outset I should like to join in the expression of sympathy to the families and friends of the 35 people who lost their lives and to those who suffered injuries, some of them, as the Statement says, most grievous.
From press reports during the investigation it is clear that Sir Anthony Hidden conducted a most searching inquiry. I am certain that the House will share my expression of gratitude to Sir Anthony for the tribute paid to the emergency services and others, to which reference is made in the Statement. Some of the recommendations are made to the emergency services; some relate to BR's own emergency plans. On reading that section my mind went back to the debate we had last week when reference was made to the need for attention to be given to our peacetime emergency services.
I am grateful for the arrangements made for me and, I believe, one or two others to receive an advance copy of the report. However, as I received the report, which consists of over 200 pages, only about an hour and a half or two hours ago, it will be understood that I have not read it in full. However, I note at the outset that Sir Anthony expresses his gratitude for the splendid assistance given to him throughout the investigation by his three outstanding assessors.
The report must be studied very carefully before a final decision is made on the investigation but I note the important chapters on wiring which caused the accident and how the errors came to be made. I should like to read just three lines from Chapter 8.46 of the report:
"There was incompetence, ineptitude, inefficiency and failure of management in the way it came about that on Sunday, 27 November 1988, that particular workforce were engaged in doing those particular jobs".
The 93 recommendations will require detailed consideration. I do not criticise the Statement or the noble Viscount for not detailing them but the fact that there are 93 recommendations means that it would be very unwise to comment on them except in somewhat general terms. I believe that noble Lords will share my opinion, which is also that of others, that travel by rail is safe. I was particularly impressed by the three comments made by Sir Anthony at the start of the chapter in which he detailed the 93 recommendations. He said that lessons have to be learned,

"(i) most importantly, to seek to prevent another such accident happening by addressing both the immediate and underlying causes;

(ii) to promote a better safety culture within British Rail; and

(iii) to mitigate the effects of any future accident".

The House will be pleased to learn that those are the only two references that I shall make from the

577
report. It may be suggested that I picked them out especially but in fact as I flipped over the pages of the report they seemed to me to be outstanding comments.
Paragraph 17.10 of the report offers very strong criticism of the failures in the discharge of management responsibilities. Some of the recommendations stress the importance of the proper organisation of signalling work, and the need for improved training, supervision and testing of completed work. I note also the strong emphasis placed on BR improving its management and organisational systems for safety. Paragraph 17.13 lists no less than 16 failures in procedures followed out. I am pleased that British Rail has already moved to implement matters that arose from its own internal inquiry, in particular the installation of cab radios and the automatic train protection.
I note also with satisfaction that the Secretary of State accepted all 93 recommendations and has asked British Rail to report within three months on those addressed to BR. Can the noble Viscount inform us whether the House will have a report in due course on the response received from BR to those very important recommendations addressed in particular to it?
Can the Minister add to the assurance that adequate finance will be available to implement the report? What will such finance cover? Have the Government decided what matters will be covered by the additional finance? If expenditure is required for more resignalling work, and possibly track work, will it be available? Have the Government yet considered in what ways the powers of the Railway Inspectorate should be widened and clarified?
I note with satisfaction the acceptance of the recommendation to ensure that the inspectorate is adequately staffed. The statement says that some additional staff have already been recruited. It would be interesting to know how many additional staff have been recruited and what might be the ultimate number.
The answer to one question appears to be missing from the Statement. Is there adequate staff available for the important rewiring work? There is also the question of satisfactory working conditions. I note that the report refers to the low level of wages and the considerable amount of overtime that is being worked. I hope that the Government will seriously consider paragraph 16.80 of the report on which the Statement is completely silent. The paragraph refers to three matters that are not the fault of any individual. They are:
"(i) deferment of projects involving large capital expenditure; (ii) the method and frequency of reorganisation within BR; and (iii) the control of the execution of major projects".
I have been a little selective in picking out the items from the report. However, those were outstanding. The report requires the most serious consideration. On the whole I believe that we can be satisfied with the attention that the Government have given to the 93 recommendations.
5 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I also thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement. Our first thoughts go to the relatives of the 35 dead, to the 500 people who were injured, 69 of them seriously, and to the many people outside that small scene on that December morning last year whose lives have been affected by what was an awful tragedy.
I also join in thanking Sir Anthony Hidden and all those who assisted him in carrying out this excellent inquiry. We are very well served, as we were served by Mr. Fennell in the King's Cross fire disaster, by people who are prepared to give their professional expertise in these inquiries. One only wishes that such inquiries were not necessary.
On reading the report in the short time since we received copies, one has a strong feeling for the old saying that for want of a nail the shoe was lost, for want of a shoe the horse was lost, and so on. A chain of accidents occurred here. However, from what I have read, the report deals not only with the technical aspects of the accident which led up to the disaster but of the culture that lies behind it and the failures of individual people and management as a whole.
It is impossible to go in detail through the 93 recommendations. I have not had time to read them all myself. However, the Government's attitude to those recommendations is to to be commended, as is that of British Rail. I am pleased that the Minister has seen fit to draw these recommendations to the attention of LRT and the PTEs at the earliest possible moment. I welcome too the statement that finance will not stand in the way of ensuring safety in the future. There must be a question on how far finance stood in the way of safety in Ole past. But that is a matter we may discuss another day.
I feel sad that British Rail's management has not been able to create a climate within its organisation that might have avoided the disaster occurring. There is no doubt that at the top management level of British Rail for many years there has been a desire to run a safe railway. Sir Robert Reid made it clear in his evidence that that was the standard that British Rail senior management expected to be set. At paragraph 13.12 he assured the inquiry that British Rail Board was committed to "absolute safety" and indeed had appointed a director of safety in November, the month before the accident. However, the report continues:
"In this case the target of absolute safety was not met. The causes were a combination of bad practice and mismanagement … I am satisfied that the errors which were made did not result from any deliberate decision to to cut corners on safety".
Nevertheless, at an earlier point the report states:
"Sadly, that regime did not exist and management at all levels within the S&T Department of BR's Southern Region failed abysmally, irrespective of any good intentions, to see that such a regime was developed, cultivated and enforced".
I do not intend to name names from the report today. It would not be right. However, the report goes into considerable detail about individual responsibilities. With reference to one of the testers, it states:
"He was, in fact, at much too junior a level to have the responsibility for such a task, which, while it was certainly not

579
thrust upon him, slipped down the levels of authority until it came to rest on his desk".
One begins to see a picture emerging of a degree of sloppiness in middle management.
Later, at paragraph 16.26 the report states:
"The problem, yet again, was that [he] was left to his own devices by higher management and his devices were neither adequate nor safe".
The report does not point the finger only at management, but in other directions also. It states:
"The situation is not the fault of BR alone. The unions too must bear their share of responsibility for attitudes of entrenched resistance to change which are out of place in a modern world. It was a matter of regret to the Court to see during the evidence how obvious and how deep was the mistrust and suspicion employer had for union and union had for employer".
It goes much deeper than one accident on one day. It goes to the whole culture of this great nationalised industry. The report continues:
"The comments I have made on recruitment and promotion and on payment of wages apply with equal force to the level of overtime working tolerated in British Rail. It is an outdated and wasteful system which by reason of the unsocial hours involved inevitably has a resultant adverse effect on recruiting. Constraints on recruiting are constraints on safety and have to be removed".
With those slightly selective quotations I hope that I have been able to indicate to the House that within the report there is much that we should consider in great detail.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I wish to hear the Government's reply as regards the Railway Inspectorate. How far is it up to establishment and how far do they consider that to be adequate? One is glad that the Government are taking steps to increase the numbers. However, recently there have been a number of occasions on which the question of safety has arisen. Often it is the level of inspection and investigation which is not up to what we consider to be adequate. Is it thought that any matters will be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and is further action in that direction anticipated?
This matter is far too complex to deal with in a short exchange such as this. I have already spoken for too long but there are many other points that I should like to make. I hope that the usual channels can find time between now and Christmas to set a debate on this important topic.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, for their positive reaction to the Statement. I certainly take note of their comments. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, criminal prosecutions is a matter for the prosecuting authorities. I agree with him that this is not the time to enter into lengthy or detailed discussions on the report. They can be left for a future occasion should the noble Lord wish to arrange for a debate through the usual channels.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about BR's future response to my right honourable friend's request for a three monthly report on progress. I shall certainly take up his point with my right honourable friend. As regards the noble Lord's other two points, in May my right honourable friend's predecessor told the chairman that he would give sympathetic attention to any proposals for authority for major
580
investments to enhance safety. That is recorded in the report at Chapter 14, paragraph 14, and it remains the position. My right honourable friend cannot give blanket assurance that any safety proposal will be approved however great the cost and however small the benefit. The report recommends that the cost effectiveness of safety measures should be explored and he has accepted that.
As regards the important question of the Railway Inspectorate, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, more inspectors have been recruited. Since last year there has been an increase by almost half the number. The chief inspector's current assessment is that he will need another three inspectors to implement the Hidden Report in full but he will recruit more if necessary. At present the Railway Inspectorate's professional staff is 23 strong. It was recruiting up to a level of 31 but as a result of the report, the number will be increased by three to a total of 34.
At this stage I cannot go into too much detail. I remind your Lordships that the accident occurred while a major modernising programme was taking place to improve signalling on the line to Waterloo. Therefore, the argument put forward in some quarters that under-investment was a contributory factor is totally unjustified.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Viscount —
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I believe that the order of the House is that occasionally members of the SDP have an opportunity to contribute. On behalf of these Benches I thank the noble Viscount. Like other noble Lords I have not had the opportunity of studying the report in detail. However, from a quick perusal I can see that it is most searching. I add my thanks to the authors and assessors.
The photographs in the report bring back to us the real horror of the events as we witnessed them on the day of the terrible accident. For obvious reasons it is unfortunate that the accident took place, not least because it is bound to diminish the reputation of public transport at a time when we need to re-emphasise its importance in solving environmental problems and so forth.
I was the longest-serving member of the British Rail Board before I retired. As such I wish to say that, while the report makes comment on the incompetence and inefficiency in this instance, we should keep in mind the large number of passengers carried by British Rail, particularly in the South-East. I assure noble Lords that the question of safety on the railways has not been overlooked or neglected in the proceedings of the board. This particular case is unfortunate but, considering the volume of traffic carried, British Rail is to be congratulated on having a safety record higher than that of most other railways in the world.
Inspection of the annual reports of British Rail and the Department of Transport shows that every

581
year the details of the number of accidents are revealed. While in this case British Rail has lamentably fallen short of its usual standards we must remember that it observes high safety standards. That is particularly important at a time of increasing automatic signalling and devices and of high speed trains. Every week I travel for six hours on a high speed train to London. I am always comfortable in the knowledge that nothing will happen. In considering the responsibilities of British Rail we have a right to condemn its inefficiencies and incompetence in this case but we have no right to cast a general condemnation on British Rail as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, pointed out the words in the Statement:
"Finance will not stand in the way of the necessary impovements".
There is almost an implication that to some extent finance contributed to the lack of the necessary standards of safety. I am delighted to have the Minister's firm assurance in the Statement that finance will not stand in the way.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. The best way in which I can respond is to stress that in terms of deaths per passenger mile travel by rail is far safer than by car. Rail accidents stay etched in out minds because there are so few and when they occur they are so horrific. However, we must not allow ourselves to forget how rare they really are. I assure the House that safety is my right honourable friend's top priority. It is certainly BR's and LRT's. Sad though it is, we cannot have completely safe railways because risk can never be entirely eliminated. We must identify the risks and try to minimise them. It is in that respect that the report is so useful and constructive.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that for 36 years I have travelled from my home in Surrey through Clapham Junction Station at least 10 times a week? Cynical as it may seem, is he aware that many people believe that it is a miracle that this is the first time such a major accident has occurred in the area? Will he also accept that it is due largely to the skill of the railway workers, even though the report—which I have not had an opportunity to see—makes obviously justifiable criticisms which we must debate at a later date?
Is the Minister further aware that I was on a train just an hour after this accident and it was of course some time before anybody quite realised what had happened? Two acquaintances of mine were on the train from Poole; and fortunately, neither was seriously injured.
I have one question to ask the Minister having, as I say, not seen the report. What priority is given to the training of those operating the signals at busy places like Clapham Junction where enormous skill is needed? Can he give any indication as to whether the training will be elaborated upon as a result of this awful tragedy?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, on the latter point I advise my noble friend to read the report. I believe that he will find the answer better stated there than any I am able to give. I should like to emphasise that money was not the cause of the accident. I have travelled through Clapham Junction on a number of occasions over the years and, with the number of trains which go through that particular part of the line—hundreds per day—in all directions, I agree with my noble friend that it is a miracle that there has not been a previous accident. I give due praise to those who control that line. The whole point is that this new investment should make it safer in the future than it has been in the past.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, perhaps I could first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for jumping up too quickly. The Minister referred to the Bellgrove accident. I have not yet had an opportunity to see the report but I hope that the Minister will convey to the Secretary of State that part of the worry in Scotland is a belief that the accident may have been caused because of the singling of the line and the lack of adequate signalling. The difficulty for Scottish people is that it seems to be part of British Rail's policy to continue with this singling of certain lines, believing that the signalling can be improved. There is a very heavily used part of the line on the outskirts of Glasgow at Milngavie where they are talking of doing the same thing. I merely want to register that I hope a lesson will be taken from the accident at Bellgrove.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I certainly take note of what the noble Lord says. I do not believe that he would expect me to comment in advance of the report. I can tell him that the completion of the Bellgrove report has been delayed because until very recently a key witness was too ill to give evidence.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I also thank my noble friend. He may be aware and no doubt the House would like to know that since a safety officer has been appointed, British Rail is now in consultation with RoSPA on general safety matters on the railways.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for making that point.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I asked my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe to speak because not only am I in receipt of a pension from British Rail but I worked for seven years on Southern Region. I should however like to thank the noble Viscount for his considerate words regarding British Rail.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
5.24 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
3 Clause 3, page 4, line 39, leave out 'Part I' and insert 'section 3'
4 Page 4, line 42, leave out 'Part' and insert 'section'.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 11, 16, 17, 19, 35, 43, 44, 323, 324 and 344.
These amendments make minor changes to Part I. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 replace a reference to the commencement of Part I of the Bill with a reference to the specific provision in question, to allow for the possibility that different provisions in the part are brought into force at different times. Amendments Nos. 6 and 11 improve the clarity of the part. Amendments Nos. 7 and 344 correct minor errors. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 make references to "accounts" more precise and Amendment No. 19 makes clear how references to the day on which accounts are sent to shareholders and others are to be interpreted. Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 make minor change to the order-making power in new Section 257. They ensure that the power includes the power to make consequential amendments elsewhere in the 1985 Act and in other enactments and to make transitional provisions. The other amendments are consequential.
Moved, That the House to agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for moving these amendments and for speaking to the comprehensive group which we have on our list. I am also extremely pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, taking part in this debate.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, so am I!
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, he did carry the heat and burden of the day when the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, was absent.
In this group, which I believe was agreed with the Government Whips Office, is included Amendment No. 43A. Therefore, in addition to speaking to the grouping which the noble Lord mentioned, I shall also speak to that amendment.
I have no particular quarrel with any amendments in this grouping other than Amendment No. 43. I thought it appropriate to mark my disapproval of that amendment by introducing my amendment. When the appropriate time comes I shall have to decide whether or not I wish formally to move that.
Amendment No. 43 introduces a feature into this legislation which is sometimes known as the Henry VIII feature. That introduces into Clause 18 a provision that the Secretary of State shall make regulations, which is already in the clause, to alter
584
accounting requirements. However, in the words of the Commons amendment he may:
"make consequential amendments of or repeals in other provisions of this Act, or in other enactments, and".
In other words, in making his regulations the Secretary of State may, by secondary legislation, change primary legislation. That has always been a principle which your Lordships have opposed.
As the noble Lord will know, on previous occasions we have had many debates about this. I believe that it is an undesirable principle that the Secretary of State can change Acts of Parliament by orders which are subject to whatever procedure one likes to name. It does not really matter what is the procedure because, even under the affirmative resolution procedure, orders cannot be amended. It is in that spirit that I wish to oppose Amendment No. 43 unless the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, can give me good reasons why I should not do so.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps it would save time later if I gave a rough guide to the Government's thoughts on Amendment No. 43. That deals with new Section 257 and gives the Secretary of State the power to alter the accounting requirements of Part VII of the 1985 Act by statutory instrument.
We discussed, as did the noble Lord, Lord Williams, the order-making powers at some considerable length at all stages of the Bill as it went through this House. Amendment No. 43 merely ensures that the order-making power includes a power to make consequential—and only consequential—amendments elsewhere, both in the 1985 Act and in other enactments, and the power to make transitional provisions.
We had thought that new Section 257(4)(c), which we have already discussed, gave adequate powers, but on reflection and considering an equivalent provision in the Building Societies Act, we have concluded that it should give the Secretary of State such powers. I know we have not reached Amendment No. 43A, but I hope that explanation gives the noble Lords some idea of our thinking.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I should like also to say how glad I am to see the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, taking up the cudgels again on this matter after his brilliant appearances on many occasions on a previous Bill. Do I understand him to say that, when we are supposed to construe the words "or in other enactments", the enactments referred to must be associated company law matters, or is it any old Bill? I am not sure whether the noble Lord was saying that there are enactments concerned with company law. If they are not limited to enactments dealing with company law, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, may I very briefly say that these amendments would only be consequential amendments under the power already given under the section.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
5 Clause 4, page 6, line 43, leave out 'the special circumstances of the company' and insert 'special circumstances'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons Amendment No. 5. I apologise that I am not Lord Strathclyde who is so widely acclaimed, and rightly so when speaking from this Dispatch Box. Nevertheless I hope your Lordships will allow me to move this amendment. Removing the words "of the company" from Section 226(5) widens the application of that provision in a way which we believe would help ensure that the detailed accounting requirements of the Act are overridden in appropriate cases in the interests of accounts showing a true and fair view. It is therefore no more than a technical point and a clarification. I hope your Lordships will agree with it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Trefgarne).
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I certainly do not regret that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is not the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I think the two characters mesh very easily. We are very glad to see the noble Lord taking part for the first time in a Companies Bill. I am sure it will not be the last time because nowadays we have a Companies Bill more or less every Session.
Can the noble Lord very kindly explain, given that the expression "the special circumstances of the company" is to be left out and "special circumstances" put in instead, what sort of special circumstances the Government have in mind? Will these special circumstances be defined in any way? Will they not be defined in any way? Who is to say? Will it be for the court to say whether they are special circumstances? Can he illuminate the discussion a little more?
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, can the Minister go a little further? In defining "special circumstances" is it proposed to have some regulations in relation to this matter?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am able to explain in more detail what is meant. I had hoped my earlier shorter observations would have been sufficient for your Lordships, but I am happy to go further.
New Section 226(5) gives primacy to the true and fair requirement in new Section 226(2). At present it states that if, in the special circumstances of the company, compliance with other detailed rules is inconsistent with the requirement to show a true and fair view, then the directors must depart from those rules to the extent necessary to give a true and fair view.
We have looked at this very carefully and have concluded that we should bring the wording into line with the corresponding provisions on group accounts by removing the restriction that the special circumstances must be those of the company. The effect is that where there are special circumstances
586
of a general nature—or indeed special circumstances which apply to a particular class of companies, and as a result accounts prepared strictly in accordance with the detailed rules in the Act do not show a true and fair view—then companies must depart from the detailed rules to ensure that a true and fair view is given.
I hope that clarifies the matter for the noble Lord and that he will now agree that the amendment should form part of the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
6 Clause 4, page 7, line 4, at end insert 'to this Act'.
7 Clause 5, page 7, line 16, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
8 Page 10, line 15, leave out 'was acquired and'.
9 Page 10, line 17, at end insert 'and the undertaking has not previously been included in consolidated group accounts prepared by the parent company'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
These amendments concern the circumstances in which a company can exclude a subsidiary from its consolidated accounts, specifically where shares are acquired with the sole intention of reselling them. I gave a commitment to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, at an earlier stage of consideration of this Bill that the Government would look very carefully at subsection (3)(c) of new Section 229. This was in the light of concern that had been expressed by the Law Society and the British Bankers' Association that this might require banks, for example, to consolidate bodies where there would be general agreement that this was inappropriate. These amendments meet the point without opening up a loophole for companies which seek deliberately to keep subsidiaries out of consolidated accounts. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for responding to the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. The problem, if I may say so, arises with the wording that the Government have now introduced.
Commons Amendment No. 9 is odd in that any undertaking, any investment or the interest of the parent company—to use the words in Clause 5 of the Bill—is bound to be included in the consolidated group accounts prepared by the parent company. It may not be consolidated, but it is bound to be

587
included as an investment if it is not consolidated. I am therefore confused by the wording that the Government have adopted. I hope the noble Lord will be able to say that, contrary to my accounting advice, what the Government are putting in the Bill is clear.
The second problem concerns leaving out the expression "was acquired and", because if we read the Bill as drafted with the Commons amendment consolidated into it—if I may use the expression—new Section 229(3)(c) in Clause 5(3) would read:
"the interest of the parent company is held exclusively with a view to subsequent resale".
In its original form —
"the interest of the parent company was acquired and is held exclusively with a view to subsequent resale"—
it defined the word "subsequent". It was obviously subsequent to the acquisition. The acquisition was made for subsequent resale. If you leave out, as Commons Amendment No. 8 does, the words "was acquired and", there is no definition of the word "subsequent". It now reads:
"the interest of the parent company is held exclusively with a view to subsequent resale".
We have to ask: subsequent to what? It may or may not have been, at certain times, the idea that it could be resold. It was perfectly clear in the original version, and I am worried that in striving to meet the legitimate concerns of my noble friend the noble Lord may have opened up all sorts of complicated problems. I shall be happy to hear the Minister's explanation.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is not here. I am sure he would have explained the point quite admirably, since it was he who pointed out in Committee that there might be a problem. Perhaps I should make clear to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the expression "included in consolidated group accounts" is a defined term. I should point the noble Lord to new Section 262 of the Bill. It means that the undertaking is included in the accounts by way of full consolidation. Therefore that is correct in this context. It means subsequent to the acquisition. We have gone into the wording with a great deal of thoroughness and we are very happy with what we have put forward in that the wording does not create any further problems or loopholes.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
10 Clause 6, page 11, line 33, at end insert—
'(3A) Where advantage is not taken of subsection (3), that fact shall be stated in a note to the company's annual accounts.'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. Clause 6 of the Bill includes a provision re-enacting existing exemptions from disclosure of the names of certain subsidiaries and
588
related undertakings which date back to the Companies Act 1967 and were introduced by the then Labour Administration.
This amendment would require a company to disclose in its accounts the fact that it had taken advantage of those exemptions from disclosure. The Government brought it forward in response to a commitment given in another place to the honourable gentleman the Member for Norwich, South, who moved a similar amendment in the Standing Committee. We have considered this carefully in the light of our obligations under the fourth and seventh company law directives. The amendment is needed to give proper effect to Article 45(1)(b) of the fourth directive and Article 35(1)(b) of the seventh directive. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
11 Page 12, line 46, at end insert 'to this Act'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
12 Clause 7, page 13, line 16, at end insert —
'(4A) If annual accounts are approved which do not comply with the requirements of this Act, every director of the company who is party to their approval and who knows that they do not comply or is reckless as to whether they comply is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine.
For this purpose every director of the company at the time the accounts are approved shall be taken to be a party to their approval unless he shows that he took all reasonable steps to prevent their being approved.'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. With the permission of your Lordships, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 23.
These amendments relate to a recommendation in the Dearing Report on the making of accounting standards that the criminal sanction in Section 245 of the Companies Act for laying or delivering defective account should go. This change is closely linked to other Commons amendments which give effect to recommendations in the Dearing Report. This is perhaps therefore the most suitable opportunity to outline progress towards establishing the new structure for the making and enforcement of accounting standards since this Bill was last before your Lordships' House in April. Although the new structure proposed by Dearing does not require legislation it is fundamental to an understanding of the whole. With permission, I should like to do so before I turn directly to these amendments.

589
The Government and the accounting profession are in agreement that the structure proposed in the Dearing Report is the right way forward and that the need is to set that structure in place as soon as possible. We have acknowledged a role for government in bringing this about though, equally, we are clear that government should not at the end of the day dominate the arrangements for setting and enforcing standards.
Following consultations with interested parties we concluded that the best way to make rapid progress was to appoint an implementor to negotiate with interested parties and finalise the arrangements for setting up the new structure. As noble Lords will be aware, my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs announced on 25th October that Sir Ronald Dearing had accepted an invitation to take on that role, as chairman designate of the Financial Reporting Council. His task is to carry forward negotiations with all concerned so that the new arrangements for accounting standards will be in place next summer. He has already announced the formation of a small task group to negotiate the finance and to develop detailed proposals. We can think of no one better than Sir Ronald to carry through this task. His appointment was warmly welcomed on both sides in another place and I am sure noble Lords will join me in doing so again and wishing him well in the task of enhancing the role of accounting standards and improving company reporting.
As my honourable friend also announced, once the body is established it is the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, acting jointly with the Governor of the Bank of England, to appoint Sir Ronald formally as chairman of the council.
I turn now to the legislative aspects of the Dearing Report. Noble Lords will recall that my noble friend the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Lord Young of Graffham, welcomed the Dearing Report on behalf of the Government in our earlier debate on this Bill. He gave a commitment that, following analysis of responses to the consultative document which my department issued in January, the Government would bring forward the necessary amendments to give effect to the recommendations which required legislation following the completion of consultation. This group of amendments —and two further groups which we will come to shortly—fully meet that commitment.
Turning to the amendments before us, these concern the criminal sanctions where annual accounts are approved which do not comply with the requirements of the Act. They must be seen as part of a slightly larger package of changes which includes the introduction of a new civil procedure for requiring companies to revise defective accounts. We shall come to that when we reach Amendment No. 24.
The Dearing Report recommends that the criminal sanction in its existing form should go. The Government agree. There has, I believe, only ever been one, though successful, prosecution. Moreover, we are concerned that retention of the criminal
590
offence might make a court less ready to make an order under the proposed new civil procedure. The only question is whether anything should replace it. We consider that there are situations where a criminal sanction remains appropriate where there is a deliberate intention to prepare defective accounts or recklessness as to the obligation to prepare accounts which comply with the Act.
However, Amendment No. 12 makes it a criminal offence for a director to be party to the approval of accounts knowing that they do not comply with the requirements of the Act or being reckless as to whether they do so.
I hope that I have given an adequate description of the purposes of these amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment —(Lord Trefgarne.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 12
12A Leave out lines 6 to 8.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12A. It seeks to leave out the second paragraph of Amendment No. 12. We basically approve of the action that the Government have taken as regards the Dearing Report. We argued in Committee that, broadly speaking, the conclusions should be supported. I am glad that the Government have taken action. We do not believe that the Government are right in saying that Dearing can be divorced from public responsibility. We believe that the Government have a responsibility to make sure that accounting standards are properly observed. Therefore the Financial Reporting Council which is to be set up should be funded and supported by the Department of Trade and Industry. That point has been argued in another place and I do not want to pursue it. As the noble Lord said, we welcome the appointment of Sir Ronald Dearing as chairman of the council and wish him every success.
The question that my amendment addresses itself to is the definition of a party to false accounts, if I may use a shorthand expression. Amendment No. 12 states:
"For this purpose every director of the company at the time the accounts are approved shall be taken to be a party to their approval unless he shows that he took all reasonable steps to prevent their being approved".
This applies not only to public companies but to private companies as well. I speak with some feeling as I am a director of a number of private companies. There may easily be occasions when accounts are put forward and a director is told that there will be a meeting in Room 6 —it may be in a committee room of your Lordships' House—when the accounts will be approved.
The director may not be aware that something has been put into the accounts by the managing director or the chairman which he, as a director, should properly know about. It worries me that this proposal is too harsh. Normally I am in favour of having harsh penalties for directors, but I believe that we

591
are going a little too far on this occasion. When the noble Lord comes to reply to my amendment I hope that he will be able to convince me that this measure is not as harsh as I think it is. I beg to move.
Moved, That amendment No. 12A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 12, be agreed to. —(Lord Williams of Elvel.)
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I also welcome the Government's attitude to the Dearing Committee, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I am a little anxious that the clause goes too far. I declare an interest as a director of some private companies. The amendment says:
"For this purpose every director of the company at the time the accounts are approved shall be taken to be a party to their approval".
I can understand that. But the amendment goes on to say:
"unless he shows that he took all reasonable steps to prevent their being approved".
What reasonable steps in practice would a man be expected to take in those circumstances?
The director may have a number of clients—I am glad to see that one or two noble Lords opposite are nodding in agreement. How can somebody show that he took all reasonable steps to prevent their being approved? What facilities has he to try to see whether they are approved? Must he say, being a cautious fellow in a private company, "I do not like these accounts. I can't approve them". Must he then ask for an adjournment so that he can examine the papers in relation to the matter? This seems to be too harsh a load to be put onto a normal director.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has already raised the matter, I seek some clarification on the word "reasonable". If the director concerned were an accountant, I could see the word "reasonable" having some meaning apropos that qualification. However, the director may be an ordinary person. Frequently in a private company a director may have no knowledge of or interest in the accounts. He has some knowledge of and interest in what the company does, whether it be in publishing books or selling antiques. Would "reasonable" then be interpreted as "reasonable" for that person? That is the clarification we require. It must be borne in mind that while in many of these companies the people concerned certainly have no knowledge of accounting or of company law, they are anxious to be as honest as they possibly can. "Reasonable" would mean one thing to a fully qualified accountant but it would mean something quite different to somebody else. The clause does not seem to differentiate according to person.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would weaken substantially the provision proposed by the Commons in Amendment No. 12. The amendment strikes a careful balance between the need to preserve the rights of the director and to be effective.
592
The new offence is much more carefully targeted than that in existing Section 245 of the 1985 Act, which makes any person who is a director at the relevant time guilty of laying or delivering defective accounts unless he can prove that he took all reasonable steps for securing compliance. The wording which the noble Lord wishes to delete is an essential part of that targeting. I shall explain why. Two conditions will have to be met for a director to be guilty of the new offence. First, it must be proved against him that he either knew that the accounts were defective or was reckless as to whether they were defective.
Secondly, the director must be a party to the approval of those accounts. If no further explanation of that term is given for this purpose, a director could be fully aware that the accounts are defective, could take no action to bring this to the notice of the other directors, and yet escape responsibility simply by making sure that he was not present or did not vote when the time came for formal approval of the accounts. For without the additional words a director would not be taken to be a party to the approval unless he had positively voted for their approval. We think that a director who is aware that the accounts do not comply should be required to take his responsibilities more seriously than that.
Amendment No. 12 achieves this in a way which does not put directors in an impossible position. A director who is aware that the accounts are defective is not required to take every possible step to prevent the accounts being approved. He is required only to take reasonable steps. That is no more than the shareholders have a right to expect. Of course, in the end it will be for the courts to determine whether the director concerned had taken all reasonable steps in the circumstances. But I believe that the wording before us is right without the benefit of the noble Lord's amendment. I hope that noble Lords will agree.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the amendment further. I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied with the explanation. The noble Lord has not responded to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, about what "reasonable steps" can reasonably be said to be.
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, I have.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we have not had a satisfactory explanation. I do not think that every director of a company who is party to their approval is properly, if I construe the amendment correctly, followed through into the second half of the amendment. Does the noble Lord wish to correct me? I am happy for him to intervene. We have a procedural problem. I am allowed to speak only twice. If the noble Lord wishes to intervene, he is entitled to do so.
I am unhappy that the definition of "reasonable" is not clear. I am unhappy that it goes further than Dearing and others would have liked. Although I accept the point that the director of the company in question has to be aware that something is going on,

593
I find that the amendment leads me in a completely different direction. The direction is the one which I reflect in my amendment.
I do not want to divide the House. It is not a matter on which we should divide because it is a technical point more than a point of principle. If the noble Lord could respond to any of my points it would help me.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I do not think there is much that I can add to what I have already said. The essence of the reasonableness is to be determined by a court in the event that it was challenged. If a director was held not to have acted reasonably, the courts would be able so to determine. Equally, it would be open to him to defend himself by persuading the court that he had acted reasonably in all the circumstances. Circumstances in every case will vary. The extent to which the director has acted reasonably or otherwise will vary according to the circumstances. It is therefore not possible, I fear, for me to define the circumstances further.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in the circumstances I do not think that it is an issue on which I want to divide the House. If this is what the Commons have decided, they are entitled to decide it. I do not find it satisfactory, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 12A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 12, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 12 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
13 Clause 8, page 14, line 18, leave out 'this section or Schedule 7' and insert 'this Part'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 15 and 366. These amendments change provisions relating to the directors' report. Amendments Nos. 15 and 366 extend the disclosure in the directors' report of a director's interests in a company's shares and in the shares of other group companies so as to cover rights and obligations to subscribe to shares—principally share options which are increasingly granted to directors. Amendment No. 13 corrects a small defect in the offence provisions in new Section 234. I beg to move.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14A not moved.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
14 Page 14, line 30, leave out from 'company' to end of line 34.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree wih the Commons in their Amendment No. 14.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
6 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
15 Page 15, line 5, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) Schedule 7 to the Companies Act 1985 (matters to be included in directors' report) is amended in accordance with Schedule (Matters to be included in directors' report) to this Act.'.
16 Clause 9, page 15, line 36, after 'the'. insert 'annual'.
17 Page 16, line 38, after first 'the', insert 'annual'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 to 17.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
18 Page 16, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 31 on page 17.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18. I should like, at the same time, to speak also to Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 34, 77 and 152, 153 and 154. These amendments form part of a restructuring of Chapter 5 of Part XI of the Companies Act 1985 which concerns the appointment of, the powers of and the dismissal of auditors.
The restructuring is necessary as a consequence of the new provisions on auditors in Part II of the Bill and in order to complete the provisions made in the Bill for the new elective regime for private companies. The amendments essentially pave the way for Amendment No. 155 which largely replaces that chapter of the Companies Act with amended provisions. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has asked that we speak to this amendment when we reach Part V of the Bill, I must ask your Lordships to accept these amendments on trust.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am delighted to accept anything on trust from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I shall speak to Amendment No. 155 in some detail when we reach that stage in our deliberations. It is the substantive amendment in the whole matter. However, in the meantime I am happy that the noble Lord should speak to these amendments. We have no problem in that respect.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
19 Clause 10, page 18, line 21, at end insert —
'(6) Where copies are sent out under this section over a period of days, references elsewhere in this Act to the day on which copies are sent out shall be construed as references to the last day of that period.'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
20 Page 19, line 8, at end insert 'or contained a statement under section 236(2) or (3) (accounting records or returns inadequate, accounts not agreeing with records and returns or failure to obtain necessary information and explanations)'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20. At the same time I should like to speak to Amendment No. 36 and perhaps also make reference to Amendment No. 36A, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, which is an amendment to Amendment No. 36.
We believe it is right, for the two purposes specified by these Commons amendments, that there should be disclosure of the fact that the auditors' report contains a statement under new Section 236(2) or (3). These are statements which the auditors are required to make but which stop short of a formal audit qualification.
Amendment No. 20 has this effect in relation to the publication of non-statutory accounts under new Section 240. Under this amendment such accounts would have to be accompanied by a statement saying not only whether the company's statutory accounts have been qualified but also whether or not the auditors' report contained a statement under Section 236. Amendment No. 36 has a similar effect in relation to summary financial statements in Clause 14.
I turn now to Amendment No. 36A, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. If I understand the noble Lord correctly, he is not opposed to the requirement to disclose and set out in the summary financial statements any statement in the auditors' report made under Section 236(2) or (3) but questions the need to make a statement in the summary accounts where there are no such statements in the audit report, as in the majority of cases.
I believe the noble Lord's point is one of detail. Amendment No. 36 in its present form need not cause the sort of difficulties the noble Lord envisages, either for the company preparing the summary financial statement or indeed the reader. I accept that it would not be particularly informative to most readers of summary statements to read that the auditors' report on the full accounts does not contain a statement under Section 236(2) or (3) of the 1985 Act. But such a requirement is, in our view, the necessary obverse to the requirement that when such a statement has been made in relation to the full accounts the fact should be noted in the summary financial statement. We believe that companies should be able to meet this requirement without undue difficulty or expense. We hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord will agree. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Williams of Elvel:My Lords, perhaps I may speak to the amendment tabled in my name, which is an amendment to Amendment No. 36, since it is in the same grouping. We have some procedural problems here. I have no particular problem with Amendment No. 12, but I have a problem with Amendment No. 36 Therefore, since they are all in the same grouping perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 36A on the basis that I shall be moving the amendment. I am most grateful to the House.
The problem with Amendment No. 36, which refers to Clause 14, is that it does not rectify what I and certain of my advisers believe to be a problem about the expression contained in subsection (4)(b) of the clause. It is therefore for procedural reasons—because we can only amend Commons amendments —that I have tacked on Amendment No. 36A to Amendment No. 36. In reality it refers to subsection (4)(b), which I am not allowed to amend because it has passed through all its stages and has not been amended in another place.
The problem is that a summary financial statement is required by subsection (4)(b) of the clause to be,
"consistent with those accounts and that report".
It is the word "consistent" which bothers me and other people. What does it mean? If I could have amended the subsection in question I should have put the words "properly extracted from" in place of the word "consistent", thereby making absolutely clear that the summary financial statement was an extract of the full form report and accounts. I am not allowed to do so and therefore I must tack on an amendment to try to achieve the same effect.
This is, however, an important point. Under the new regime many shareholders will be asked to affirm positively whether they wish to receive a full report and accounts. Many of them will not answer the letters and will simply say, "We shall not bother", and so on. Therefore they will receive summary financial statements. If those summary financial statements are consistent, as they must be under the statute, with the full long form report and accounts, that will mean whatever it means. However, if they are not properly extracted they can still be consistent and the shareholder may well be misled.
Perhaps I may give an example. A company has a turnover, it has a trading profit, it has a profit pre-tax and a profit post-tax. Let us consider the profit and loss account of the company. It would be consistent with the report and accounts for the summary financial statement to show the turnover and the profit after tax. That would be perfectly consistent. However, it may be that there is a large tax credit which has been shown in the full report and accounts but which is not shown in the summary financial statement. In that case, although the summary financial statement is consistent with the full report and accounts it has not been properly extracted, and hence, in such a situation, it would be misleading.

597
I should like to see an amendment along the lines of the one I have put forward being accepted by the Government to ensure that "consistent" means "properly extracted from" so that there can be no doubt that the auditors will say, "Yes, this summary financial statement is a proper extract of the full report and accounts". That is the object of my amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I too am anxious about the inconsistency of the word "consistent" in the context of subsection (4)(b). I should have thought that it was inevitable, having regard to the ordinary understanding of the word "consistent", that a further explanation is necessary along the lines of Amendment No. 36A. It should state that the statement is not merely consistent but that the information has been properly extracted from the company's annual accounts. I was a little worried about the word "properly" in the amendment. I do not, however, want to differ with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on a fundamental point. It might have been a better amendment to leave out the word "properly". In any event, I do not know whether I am being procedurally improper in making such a suggestion. In the circumstances, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hope that I can set the noble Lord's mind at rest on this matter. I am informed that the term "consistent with" is already used in the Companies Act in the context that requires auditors to judge the consistency of information in the directors' report with the accounts. With aid from suitable guidance from the APC, I do not believe that consistency is a concept which would cause auditors any degree of difficulty. I understand that the APC has already set up a working group to consider what guidance might be necessary. I hope that that will meet the noble Lord's concern.
I agree that there needs to be some guidance in this area. The APC is the right body to give that guidance. I am happy to reassure the noble Lord that it is already at work and ready to do just that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that information. It was not conveyed to me yesterday afternoon by a member of the APC, but if he tells me that that is the case I have no doubt that he is properly advised. It is one thing to say in statute that the report is consistent with another set of documents, which are accounts. It is another thing to say that a précis, which is the summary financial statement, is consistent with the full version. There are two different concepts of consistency.
I was most grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I used the expression "properly" so as to lay the onus on the auditors to say that the summary financial report had been properly extracted; in other words, it was for the auditors to say, "Yes, we take the responsibility for saying that the thing had been properly extracted". If the auditors merely say, "It has been extracted",
598
that is less strong than the auditors saying, "Yes, we are absolutely satisfied that it is not merely consistent but has been properly extracted".
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his explanation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the question arises as to what we do, because this is the last occasion on which we can do anything. I am not happy about the expression "consistent". I am not happy that we can just leave the matter to the APC (the auditors) to decide whether the guidance that it issues is the type of guidance that we should accept under the Act. I am afraid that I shall have to press the amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
21 Clause 11, page 20, leave out lines 28 to 44.
22 Page 21, line 11, at end insert —
'Civil penalty for failure to deliver accounts.
242A.—(1) Where the requirements of section 242(1) are not complied with before the end of the period allowed for laying and delivering accounts and reports, the company is liable to a civil penalty.
This is in addition to any liability of the directors under section 242.
(2) The amount of the penalty is determined by reference to the length of the period between the end of the period allowed for laying and delivering accounts and reports and the day on which the requirements are complied with, and whether the company is a public or private company, as follows:—

Length of period

Public company

Private company

Not more than 3 months

£500

£100

More than 3 months but not more than 6 months

£1,000

£250

More than 6 months but not more than 12 months

£2,000

£500

More than 12 months

£5,000

£1,000

(3) The penalty may be recovered by the registrar and shall be paid by him into the Consolidated Fund.
(4) It is not a defence in proceedings under this section to prove that the documents in question were not in fact prepared as required by this Part.'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 and 22.
The amendments change the level of civil penalties to which companies are liable for the late delivery of accounts and reports. My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs brought forward the amendments in response to an undertaking given in Committee in another place. As was explained in a short, harmonious debate in Committee in another place, the Government were sympathetic to the view that the penalties proposed in the Bill were too low in relation to public companies.
The amendments therefore introduce different penalties depending upon whether a company is public or private, the level of penalty being substantially increased for public companies. There is one other change: a separate band of penalties for where accounts are filed less than one month late is removed. There is now merely a single band where

599
delivery is not more than three months after the due date.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
23 Clause 11, page 23, leave out lines 10 to 19.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
6.15 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
24 After Clause 11, insert the following clause—
Remedies for failure to comply with accounting requirements 1985 c.6
The following sections are inserted in Part VII of the Companies Act 1985—
"Revision of defective accounts and reports Voluntary revision of annual accounts or directors' report.
245.—(1) If it appears to the directors of a company that any annual accounts of the company, or any directors' report, did not comply with the requirements of this Act, they may prepare revised accounts or a revised report.
(2) Where copies of the previous accounts or report have been laid before the company in general meeting or delivered to the registrar, the revisions shall be confined to —

(a) the correction of those respects in which the previous accounts or report did not comply with the requirements of this Act, and

(b) the making of any necessary consequential alterations.

(3) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations as to the application of the provisions of this Act in relation to revised annual accounts or a revised directors' report.
(4) The regulations may, in particular —

(a) make different provision according to whether the previous accounts or report are replaced or are supplemented by a document indicating the corrections to be made;

(b) make provision with respect to the functions of the company's auditors in relation to the revised accounts or report;

(c) require the directors to take such steps as may be specified in the regulations where the previous accounts or report have been —

(i) sent out to members and others under section 238(1),

(ii) laid before the company in general meeting, or

(iii) delivered to the registrar,

or where a summary financial statement based on the previous accounts or report has been sent to members under section 252;

(d) apply the provisions of this Act (including those creating criminal offences) subject to such additions, exceptions and modifications as are specified in the regulations.

(5) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
Secretary of State's notice in respect of annual accounts.
254A.—(1) Where copies of a company's annual accounts have been sent out under section 238, or a copy of a company's annual accounts has been laid before the company in general meeting or delivered to the registrar, and it appears to the Secretary of State that there is, or may be, a question whether the accounts comply with the requirements of this Act, he may give notice to the directors of the company indicating the respects in which it appears to him that such a question arises, or may arise.
(2) The notice shall specify a period of not less than one month for the directors to give him an explanation of the accounts or prepare revised accounts.
(3) If at the end of the specified period, or such longer period as he may allow, it appears to the Secretary of State that no satisfactory explanation of the accounts has been given and that the accounts have not been revised so as to comply with the requirements of this Act, he may if he thinks fit apply to the court.
(4) The provisions of this section apply equally to revised annunal accounts, in which case the references to revised accounts shall be read as references to further revised accounts.
Application to court in respect of defective accounts.
254B.—(1) An application may be made to the court—

(a) by the Secretary of State, after having complied with section 245A, or

(b) by a person authorised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section,

for a declaration or declarator that the annual accounts of a company do not comply with the requirements of this Act and for an order requiring the directors of the company to prepare revised accounts.
(2) Notice of the application, together with a general statement of the matters at issue in the proceedings, shall be given by the applicant to the registrar for registration.
(3) If the court orders the preparation of revised accounts, it may give directions with respect to—

(a) the auditing of the accounts,

(b) the revision of any directors' report or summary financial statement, and

(c) the taking of steps by the directors to bring the making of the order to the notice of persons likely to rely on the previous accounts,

and such other matters as the court thinks fit.
(4) If the court finds that the accounts did not comply with the requirements of this Act it may order that all or part of—

(a) the costs (or in Scotland expenses) of and incidental to the application, and

(b) any reasonable expenses incurred by the company in connection with or in consequence of the preparation of revised accounts,

shall be borne by such of the directors as were party to the approval of the defective accounts.
For this purpose every director of the company at the time the accounts were approved shall be taken to have been a party to their approval unless he shows that he took all reasonable steps to prevent their being approved.
(5) Where the court makes an order under subsection (4) it shall have regard to whether the directors party to the approval of the defective accounts knew or ought to have known that the accounts did not comply with the requirements of this Act, and it may exclude one or more directors from the order or order the payment of different amounts by different directors.
(6) On the conclusion of proceedings on an application under this section, the applicant shall give to the registrar

601
for registration an office copy of the court order or, as the case may be, notice that the application has failed or been withdrawn.
(7) The provisions of this section apply equally to revised annual accounts, in which case the references to revised accounts shall be read as references to further revised accounts.
Other persons authorised to apply to court.
245C.—(1) The Secretary of State may authorise for the purposes of section 245B any person appearing to him —

(a) to have an interest in, and to have satisfactory procedures directed to securing, compliance by companies with the accounting requirements of this Act,

(b) to have satisfactory procedures for receiving and investigating complaints about the annual accounts of companies, and

(c) otherwise to be a fit and proper person to be authorised.

(2) A person may be authorised generally or in respect of particular classes of case, and different persons may be authorised in respect of different classes of case.
(3) The Secretary of State may refuse to authorise a person if he considers that his authorisation is unnecessary having regard to the fact that there are one or more other persons who have been or are likely to be authorised.
(4) Authorisation shall be by order made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5) Where authorisation is revoked, the revoking order may make such provision as the Secretary of State thinks fit with respect to pending proceedings.
(6) Neither a person authorised under this section, nor any officer, servant or member of the governing body of such a person, shall be liable in damages for anything done or purporting to be done for the purposes of or in connection with —

(a) the taking of steps to discover whether there are grounds for an application to the court,

(b) the determination whether or not to make such an application, or

(c) the publication of its reasons for any such decision,

unless the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith.".'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24.
The amendment gives effect to one of the central recommendations of the Dearing Report on the Making of Accounting Standards —that there should be a new power for the Secretary of State, or a body authorised by him, to apply to the courts for an order requiring the revision of accounts which do not comply with the requirements of the Act. It inserts important new sections into the 1985 Act which result in a stronger framework within which companies must prepare accounts giving a true and fair view. The sections form a logical sequence.
First, in considering the Dearing recommendations, we reached the conclusion that the directors of a company who realised that their accounts were defective should be able to prepare revised statutory accounts without any more ado. That is the purpose of new Section 245.
The second step is more formal but still stops short of an application to the courts. New Section 245A gives the Secretary of State the power to issue
602
a formal notice to the directors of a company where he suspects that accounts prepared by them do not comply with the requirements of the Act. Companies will have to explain why they believe the Secretary of State is wrong; alternatively, they can simply prepare revised accounts using the voluntary procedures and satisfy the Secretary of State in that way.
The new civil procedure itself is the third step and is set out in new Section 245B. The Government strongly agree with the Dearing Committee that that is the appropriate form of reserve power. It should be available to the Secretary of State, and he should also be able to authorise other bodies, as Dearing recommends. The civil procedure enables the court not only to declare that a company's accounts do not comply with the requirements of the Act but to require the directors to prepare revised accounts. Like Dearing, we see the power as one to be used sparingly. Nevertheless, it provides the underpinning of the whole framework and is extremely important on that count.
I referred a moment ago to the proposal that the civil sanction should also be available to a person authorised by the Secretary of State. New Section 245C sets that out: it does not in itself prescribe such persons; it is permissive. I believe that it is the right approach.
These are important changes. I believe that Sir Ronald has already made clear that he envisages that the review panel, when it is set up, should be given the power to apply to the courts to require a large company to revise its accounts where they do not provide a true and fair view.
I hope that with those explanations your Lordships will agree to the proposals.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 24
24A Line 7, after ("report") insert ("or any summary financial statement prepared under the provisions of section 252 below").
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, 1 beg to move Amendment No. 24A. I gave notice to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that I was worried about this situation. In general, Amendment No. 24 is acceptable, but whereas Section 245 of the Companies Act gives directors of a company the ability to revise accounts or reports, they have no ability under that section to revise the summary financial statement. If they find it to be out of order, apparently they can do nothing. It has occurred to my advisers —and it seems to me to be a strong point —that the insertion of summary financial statements as being something which the directors could revise, if for some reason they find them out of order, would be sensible. For that reason I have put down the amendment.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 24C and 24D, all in my name, which are purely consequential on Amendment No. 24A. I do not wish at this stage to

603
speak to Amendment No. 24B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, because I wish to hear what he himself has to say before responding. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 24A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 24, be agreed to.—(Lord Williams of Elvel.)
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I shall reply, if I may, to Amendments Nos. 24A, 24C and 24D, but specifically at this point to Amendment No. 24A. These amendments would extend the provisions of the voluntary revision of accounts, as the noble Lord has explained, to summary financial statements. I shall explain why I believe that the change would lead to no improvement at all in the Bill.
As I explained in moving Amendment No. 24, the reason for providing for the voluntary revision of the full accounts and the directors' report in the statute is to enable such documents to be filed at Companies House as statutory accounts and to require such filing, to correct the public record. Without such a provision, the revised accounts would be left in limbo since it would not be possible for the registrar lawfully to substitute them for the accounts which have already been filed.
Summary financial statements are different in that they are not required by law to be sent to the registrar of companies. They are sent to those members who do not wish to receive the full accounts. The full accounts are still filed. There is nothing in the Bill which would prevent the directors of a company from revising and reissuing summary financial statements where, for example, they are concerned lest they are defective. They would of course have committed an offence by preparing defective summary statements in the first place.
These amendments are therefore not necessary to enable the provisions on summary financial statements to work properly. I hope that the noble Lord will, on reflection, agree with that. In essence that is the difficulty I see with the noble Lord's amendments, and I therefore hope that he will not press them.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am disappointed with the noble Lord's reply. Although summary financial statements do not have to be filed, and I understand that, nevertheless they will be sent out to many thousands of shareholders. Again, those shareholders may fail to opt for the full report and accounts. It should be brought to the attention of directors of the company that they may have the facility under the present legislation to change the summary financial accounts as they see fit.
However, if they see that the annual accounts of the company or the directors' report are defective in the Companies House filing sense of the term, they ought to change the summary financial accounts if they are inconsistent. I think that the amendment is needed to draw people's attention to the fact that shareholders will rely on information. It may not be wholly conclusive in making sure that the directors
604
do it, but it will certainly draw their attention to the matter if that happens.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I was not proposing to intervene again but I hope that I have your Lordships' permission to do so, if I need it. The point is that if directors have to prepare new full accounts and to file them with the registrar, then it stands to reason that if a change is needed in the summary statement, they should make that change.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, with the leave of the House, is the noble Lord telling me that directors are obliged to change the summary financial statement, if they have to prepare new accounts for the registrar?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, again with the permission of the House, presumably in the circumstances which the noble Lord envisages, the summary financial statement would, by virtue of the new accounts, become inconsistent with the new accounts, and therefore the directors would wish to prepare a new one.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, again with the leave of the House—I apologise if there is a procedural problem but these are very important matters—the accounts may not be inconsistent. There may be defects in the annual report and accounts which are defects so far as the law is concerned, but they do not make the annual report and accounts inconsistent with the summary financial statement. That is the burden of my last amendment. They could be perfectly consistent but they may contain some mistakes which the directors might like to correct in the summary financial statement and which were not previously included, and therefore it was a defect in the report and accounts. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
6.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 24A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 24, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 136.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Amherst, E.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jay, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jeger, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kennet, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Listowel, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Falkender, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Lovell-Davis, L.

Galpern, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Glenamara, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Grey, E.

Monson, L.

Hampton, L.

Nicol, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Northfield, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Ogmore, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Oram, L.

605

Peston, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Turner of Camden, B.

Underhill, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Rea, L.

Walston, L.

Rochester, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Seear, B.

Whaddon, L.

Serota, B.

White, B.

Shackleton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Shepherd, L.

Willis, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Winstanley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Alport, L.

Joseph, L.

Arran, E.

Kenilworth, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Killearn, L.

Astor, V.

Kimball, L.

Barber, L.

Kimberley, E.

Belstead, L.

Knutsford, V.

Blake, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Blyth, L.

Liverpool, E.

Borthwick, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Butterworth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caithness, E.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Marley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Chelmer, L.

Morris, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mottistone, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Munster, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Nelson, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orkney, E.

Crathorne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Pender, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L.

Reay, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Redesdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Rees, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renton, L.

Elibank, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Elles, B.

Rochdale, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rodney, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rootes, L.

Elton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Faithfull, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Shannon, E.

Fortescue, E.

Sharples, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Southborough, L.

Gisborough, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stockton, E.

Gormanston, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strange, B.

Greenway, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Haig, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Suffield, L.

Halsbury, E.

Swinfen, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harlech, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Torphichen, L.

Harvington, L.

Tranmire, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hives, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hooper, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wedgwood, L.

Ingrow, L.

Westbury, L.

606

Whitelaw, V.

Wynford, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Young, B.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment No. 24A disagreed to accordingly.
6.34 p.m.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 24
24B Line 10, leave out inserted subsections (2) to (4).
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I wish, with the leave of the House, to make a personal statement in regard to Amendment No. 24B which stands in my name. Prior to hearing the noble Lord the Leader of the House, I had intended to move this amendment which suggests that certain parts of the new Clause inserted in the Bill should be put into the regulations rather than into the main Bill. I should say for the purposes of the record that there is a mistake in this amendment as it appears on the Marshalled List. I wish to delete subsections (2) to (4) and not subsections (2) to (5). I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 24B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 24, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 24C and 24D not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 24 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
25 Clause 12, page 23, line 27, after 'year' insert —

(a) is exempt from the requirements of paragraph 36A of Schedule 4 (disclosure with respect to compliance with accounting standards), and

(b)'.

26 Page 23, line 36, leave out 'those exemptions' and insert 'the exemptions mentioned in subsection (1)'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 25 and 26. I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 322.
This is the second group of amendments relating to the Dearing Report to which we have already referred. In line with the Dearing proposals the amendments require that the directors of public companies and large private companies state in their accounts whether those accounts have been drawn up in accordance with applicable accounting standards, to identify any material departures and to explain the reasons for such departures.
My department's consultation since the publication of the Dearing Report a year ago has shown an overwhelming majority of the 40 responses in favour of the proposal that there should be such a requirement, at least in relation to all large companies. Thirty-three gave outright support and three qualified approval. Well over half the responses favour applying this to all public companies and all large companies and this is the approach followed in the amendments. The requirement is expressed to apply to all companies that are not eligible to deliver modified accounts.
Amendment No. 41 also provides the basis on which the Government will be able to make grants to a body such as the Financial Reporting Council.

607
While it is principally for Sir Ronald to secure the commitment, financial and otherwise, to put the new structures into place, we have made clear that part of the cost will be met by a levy on companies, via the fee charged for the filing of the annual return. This amendment enables a grant equivalent to the proceeds of a levy to be paid to a body such as the Financial Reporting Council. I hope that I have adequately explained the amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 322. Your Lordships will be aware that I have been advised on this amendment by the CBI. I welcome the Government's proposals which I believe are fully in accord with the views of the CBI. I am told that the CBI welcomes the Government's undertaking to consult with the relevant interested parties on the issue of the funding of the Financial Reporting Council. The CBI looks forward to future discussions. It is considered that those who prepare and use accounts, not least the Government as a major preparer and user, should bear the cost.
Lord Peston: My Lords, these are obviously sensible amendments, but I have one question for the Minister. I speak as one who is not an accountant. We have accounting standards. Essentially, the requirement is to produce disclosure with respect to compliance with accounting standards. However, as a layman, I fail to understand what kind of circumstance would cause someone not to comply. Why is the requirement not mandatory, and why is there not a simple statement that everyone should produce accounts that comply with accounting standards full stop? Is there some subtle reason for voluntarism which I do not understand?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, this matter was discussed at great length at an earlier stage of the Bill. I am not sure whether the noble Lord took part at that time; I am afraid that I did not. I believe the House would be unduly wearied if I were to repeat all the arguments that were then deployed. However, if the noble Lord wishes, I shall be happy to write to him.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
27 Page 26, line 20, leave out '£2·4 million' and insert '£2 million net (or £2·4 million gross)'.
28 Page 26, line 21, leave out '£1·2 million' and insert '£1 million net (or £1·2 million gross)'.
29 Page 26, line 26, leave out '£9·6 million' and insert '£8 million net (or £9·6 million gross)'.
30 Page 26, line 27, leave out '£14·7 million' and insert '£3·9 million net (or £4·7 million gross)'.
31 Page 26, line 33, leave out from 'group' to end of line 35 and insert —
'In In relation to the aggregate figures for turnover and balance sheet total, "net" means with the set-offs and other adjustments required by Schedule 4A in the case of group accounts and "gross" means without those set-offs and
608
other adjustments' and a company may satisfy the relevant requirement on the basis of either the net or the gross figure.'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 to 31. This group of amendments gives companies two alternative ways of calculating whether or not they meet the conditions for a small-size or medium-size group under new Section 249, instead of one way as at present. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I again have another layman's question. This seems to make sense, but I have a question. Although on and off I took part in the proceedings on this Bill, I become more and more convinced that I do not understand any of it. Can the noble Lord explain to me, net or gross of what?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the original sum.
Lord Peston: My Lords, that leaves me even more mystified.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if I may briefly explain: in order to qualify a group must meet two of three tests of size. These relate to the aggregate group figure for turnover and balance sheet totals and the number of group employees. The Bill in its original form would require those aggregate figures to be calculated on a gross basis—that is, without making the adjustments which would otherwise be required to prepare statutory consolidated accounts; in other words, without the usual elimination of intra-group transactions. This method has the attraction of simplicity. It should be permitted where the question is whether or not a group is exempt. The alternative of using a net basis would be wholly inappropriate in most cases. The noble Lord talks of gross or net; basically it is gross or net of intra-group transactions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
32 Clause 13, page 27, line 1, leave out 'sections are' and insert 'section is'
33 Page 27, line 5, leave out from 'the' to 'in' in line 6 and insert 'provisions of this Part relating to the audit of accounts'.
34 Page 27, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 26 on page 28 and insert—
'(4) Where a company is, at the end of a financial year, exempt by virtue of this section from the provsiions of this Part relating to the audit of accounts —

(a) sections 238 and 239 (right to receive or demand copies of accounts and reports) have effect with the omission of references to the auditors' report;

(b) no copies of an auditors' report need be laid before the company in general meeting;

(c) no copy of an auditors' report need be delivered to the registrar, and if none is delivered, the copy of the balance sheet so delivered shall contain a statement by the directors, in a position immediately above the signature required by section 233(4), that the company was dormant throughout the financial year; and

609

(d) the company shall be treated as entitled in respect of its individual accounts for that year to the exemptions conferred by section 246 on a small company, notwithstanding that it is a member of an ineligible group.

(5) Where a company which is exempt by virtue of this section from the provisions of this Part relating to the audit of accounts—

(a) ceases to be dormant, or

(b) would no longer qualify (for any other reason) to make itself exempt by passing a resolution under this section,

it shall thereupon cease to be so exempt.".'.
35 Clause 14, page 28, line 39, leave out 'Great Britain and' and insert 'the United Kingdom and the Republic of.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 32 to 35 en bloc. I should point out that Amendment No. 33 has been corrected.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
36 Clause 14, page 29, line 15, at end insert—
'(d) state whether the auditors' report on the annual accounts contained a statement under —

(i) section 236(2) (accounting records or returns inadequate or accounts not agreeing with records and returns), or

(ii) section 236(3) (failure to obtain necessary information and explanations),

and if so, set out the statement in full;'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36. I have already spoken to this amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
[Amendment No. 36A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 36, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 36 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
37 Clause 17, page 31, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 39 on page 32 and insert—
'Special provisions for banking and insurance companies.
255.—(1) A banking or insurance company may prepare its individual accounts in accordance with Part I of Schedule 9 rather than Schedule 4.
(2) Accounts so prepared shall contain a statement that they are prepared in accordance with the special provisions of this Part relating to banking companies or insurance companies, as the case may be.
(3) In relation to the preparation of individual accounts in accordance with the special provisions of this Part relating to banking or insurance companies, the references to the provisions of Schedule 4 in section 226(4) and (5) (relationship between specific requirements and duty to give true and fair view) shall be read as references to the provisions of Part I of Schedule 9.
(4) The Secretary of State may, on the application or with the consent of the directors of a company which prepares individual accounts in accordance with the special
610
provisions of this Part relating to banking or insurance companies, modify in relation to the company any of the requirements of this Part for the purpose of adapting them to the circumstances of the company.
This does not affect the duty to give a true and fair view.
Special provisions for banking and insurance groups.
255A.—(1) The parent company of a banking or insurance group may prepare group accounts in accordance with the provisions of this Part as modified by Part II of Schedule 9.
(2) Accounts prepared shall contain a statement that they are prepared in accordance with the special provisions of this Part relating to banking groups or insurance groups, as the case may be.
(3) References in this Part to a banking group are to a group where —

(a) the parent company is a banking company, or

(b) at least one of the undertakings in the group is an authorised institution under the Banking Act 1987 and the predominant activities of the group are such as to make it inappropriate to prepare group accounts in accordance with the formats in Part I of Schedule 4.

(4) References in this part to an insurance group are to a group where —

(a) the parent company is an insurance company, or

(b) the predominant activity of the group is insurance business and activities which are a direct extension of or ancillary to insurance business.

(5) In relation to the preparation of group accounts in accordance with the special provisions of this Part relating to banking or insurance groups, the references to the provisions of Schedule 4A in section227(5) and (6) (relationship between specific requirements and duty to give true and fair view) shall be read as references to those provisions as modified by Part II of Schedule 9.
(6) The Secretary of State may, on the application or with the consent of the directors of a company which prepares group accounts in accordance with the special provisions of this Part relating to banking or insurance groups, modify in relation to the company any of the requirements of this Part for the purpose of adapting them to the circumstances of the company.
Modification of disclosure requirements in relation to banking company or group.
255B.—(1) In relation to a company which prepares accounts in accordance with the special provisions of this Part relating to banking companies or groups, the provisions of Schedule 5 (additional disclosure; related undertakings) have effect subject to Part III of Schedule 9.
(2) in relation to a banking company, or the parent company of a banking company, the provisions of Schedule 6 (disclosure: emoluments and other benefits of directors and others) have effect subject to Part IV of Schedule 9.
Directors' report where accounts prepared in accordance with special provisions.
255C.—(1) The following provisions apply in relation to the directors' report of a company for a financial year in respect of which it prepares accounts in accordance with the special provisions of this Part relating to banking or insurance companies or groups.
(2) The information required to be given by paragraph 6, 8 or 13 of Part I of Schedule 9 (which is allowed to be given in a statement or report annexed to the accounts), may be given in the directors' report instead.
Information so given shall be treated far the purposes of audit as forming part of the accounts.
(3) The reference in section 234(1)(6) to the amount proposed to be carried to reserves shall be construed as a reference to the amount proposed to be carried to reserves within the meaning of Part I of Schedule 9.
(4) If the company takes advantage, in relation to its individual or group accounts, of the exemptions conferred

611
by paragraph 27 or 28 of Part I of Schedule 9, paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 (disclosure of asset values) does not apply.
(5) The directors' report shall, in addition to complying with Schedule 7, also comply with Schedule 10 (which specifies additional matters to be disclosed).'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 38 to 40 and Nos. 367 to 372.
This series of amendments is perhaps more fearsome in length than in the nature of the changes it makes to the Bill. I shall comment briefly. Following the introduction of the Bill in your Lordships' House, my department held discussions with representatives of banking and insurance companies and the Bank of England on the detailed requirements of Clause 17 and the related Schedule 6. These followed earlier consultation in the course of the preparation of the Bill. Almost inevitably, on a topic such as this, a number of points of detail were raised. In making a relatively small number of changes in response to this, however, it was clear that the structure of this part of the Bill could be improved. The length of the amendments is very largely explained by that restructuring. I hope that that clear explanation will convince your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 37
37A Leave out line 24.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 37A. There may be some confusion here in terms of counting lines, because the piece of paper that we have before us does not have the lines numbered. But I assert, until someone contradicts me, that line 24 is the line which states:
"This does not affect the duty to give a true and fair view".
I pause in case anybody counts in a different way, but that is my view. I hope that we are in agreement as to which line this amendment is about. At some time, I shall inquire of the great experts why we do not have line numbering on this occasion; but there we are.
Essentially the amendment is put down interrogatively. It seems to us that it is inconceivable that the purpose of Amendment No. 37, when it was introduced in another place by the Government, could in any way be interpreted to mean that it affects the duty to give a true and fair view. It is simply impossible that that could be the case. Therefore I can put it interrogatively. Although I find it inconceivable, I smell a rat. So may I be told, if it does affect the issue, why?
However, if I am right that it is impossible for this amendment, as the Government are introducing it, to affect the duty to give a true and fair view, then on our old principle of not having sentences in Bills which do not need to be there, particularly a sentence of this sort, my view is that it simply should not be
612
there. In other words, it seems to me something that the word processor left in the clause and somebody forgot to press the erase button. So I put it to noble Lords that either the sentence has a role which I do not believe it to have, or, much more significantly, it does not have a role and might just as well not be there.
Moved, That Amendment No. 37A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 37, be agreed to. —(Lord Peston.)
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I can see the difficulty of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, because this amendment deals wih a clause providing special provisions for banking and insurance companies. Surely there is no suggestion that they are unlikely to give a true and fair view of anything in relation to these matters. What amazes me is that these matters have apparently been discussed very fully since we last met on this matter and this clause has been put in.
Subsection (3) of the amendment states, after the reference four lines down to Section 226(4) and (5),
"(relationship between specific requirements and duty to give true and fair view)".
Having regard to those words in parenthesis, I cannot for the life of me see why it is necessary to put this other line in the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I apologise for not being here when my noble friend Lord Peston moved this amendment. I was at the birthday party of my noble friend Lady White. I hope that noble Lords will excuse me if I intervene on this amendment.
The problem is that either this sentence is otiose or it means something. If it means something, then it means that banks and insurance companies which make up their accounts, and have made up their accounts, by reference to certain schedules which allow them to put profits in reserve are duty bound to give a true and fair view. If that is the case, I do not understand how that can happen because, having been a director of a bank for a long time, I know perfectly well that any bank and some insurance companies can —we argued this point in Committee when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was present —put profits in reserve.
If that is the case, I do not see how a true and fair view can be presented. Normally, the audit report of a bank consists of a simple statement that the accounts of that banking company have been established in accordance with Companies Acts, and so on. If we now say that not only are such companies allowed to put profits in reserve and not disclose them to their shareholders, but are also to give a true and fair view, the two sentences are inconsistent.
Perhaps I may give an example. Let us suppose that a bank makes a profit of £100 million and decides quite reasonably under the provisions for banking and insurance companies to put £99 million into special reserve which it does not have to disclose. It discloses a profit of £1 million. By any reasonable standards, that is not a true and fair view; indeed, there has never been a true and fair view

613
requirement. This sentence either means something or it means nothing. If it means nothing, it should be taken out. If it means something, I shall be happy to hear what it means.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I apologise if I was a little slow in rising to my feet. I hope that I can satisfy the noble Lord on this matter.
There is no connection between new Section 255(4), from which the noble Lord wishes to delete the words,
"This does not affect the duty to give a true and fair view,"
and the provisions of the 1985 Act which permit banks to maintain so-called hidden reserves. I should make it clear that new Section 255(4) simply re-enacts in slightly different words the provisions in Section 258(4) of the 1985 Act.
The provisions on hidden reserves are quite separate. They are not to be found in the Bill because we have not disturbed the 1985 Act on this point pending implementation of the bank accounts directive. They are contained in paragraph 27 of Schedule 9 of the 1985 Act which varies certain accounting requirements in the case of banks which satisfy the Secretary of State. The Bill does not amend those provisions. The noble Lord will see that there is a specific provision at sub-paragraph (4) which ensures that hidden reserves do not result in a banking company breaching the true and fair requirement. I hope I have satisfied the noble Lord on the point, and that he will not press his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord refer me to the subsection that he mentioned? I did not quite catch what he said.
Lord Trefgarne: Of which Act, my Lords?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Of the Companies Act 1985, my Lords.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, perhaps I may say that I was referring to Section 258(4) of the 1985 Act.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, Section 258(4) of the 1985 Act refers to the Secretary of State who:
"may, on the application or with the consent of the company's directors, modify in relation to that company any of the requirements of this Chapter … (except the requirements of subsection (1) above)".
Section 258(1) states:
"Where a company's individual accounts are special category, section 228 and Schedule 4 do not apply, but —

(a) the balance sheet shall give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the company as at the end of the financial year, and

(b) the profit and loss account shall give a true and fair view of the company's profit or loss for the financial year."

I cannot see where subsection (4) is relevant. I can see that subsection (1) may be relevant, but the definition of a true and fair view is quite different under this provision from what it is, so far as I can see, in normal working accounts. Given the example that I mentioned to the noble Lord, I cannot see how
614
putting £99 million out of £100 million in a reserve and not disclosing it can comply with the true and fair view requirement.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if your Lordships will permit me to intervene yet again on this matter, perhaps I may be allowed to say that this is not a Committee stage and I fear that I shall unduly trespass on noble Lords' time if I intervene too frequently. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I do not think that I can embark upon a critique of a section of some other Act. I have referred the noble Lord to the section in question which I can confirm is the right one.
Amendment No. 37A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 37, negatived.
On Question, Amendment No. 37 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
38 Clause 17, page 32, line 39, at end insert—
'(2) The following section is inserted in Part VII of the Companies Act 1985 —'.
39 Page 33, line 6, leave out 'Part I of'.
40 Page 33, line 8, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert — '(3) In the Schedule—
Part I contains amendments relating to the form and content of accounts of banking and insurance companies and groups,
Part II contains provisions with respect to the group accounts of banking and insurance groups,
Part III contains provisions adapting the requirements of Schedule 5 to the Companies Act 1985 (additional disclosure: related undertakings), and
Part IV contains provisions relating to the requirements of Schedule 6 to that Act (additional disclosure: emoluments and other benefits of directors and others)'
(4) Schedule (Directors' report where accounts prepared in accordance with special provisions for banking and insurance companies and groups) to this Act (directors' report where accounts prepared in accordance with special provisions for banking and insurance companies and groups) is substituted for Schedule 10 to the Companies Act 1985.'.
41 After Clause 17 Under the heading 'Supplementary provisions' in page 33, line 17, insert the following Clause —
Accounting standards. 1985 c.6.
'The following section is inserted in Part VII of the Companies Act 1985, as the beginning of a Chapter III—
"CHAPTER III
SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
Accounting standards
255E. —(1) In this Part "accounting standards" means statements of standard accounting practice issued by such body or bodies as may be prescribed by regulations.
(2) References in this Part to accounting standards applicable to a company's annual accounts are to such standards as are, in accordance with their terms, relevant to the company's circumstances with—

(a) issuing accounting standards,

(b) overseeing and directing the issuing of such standards, or

(c) investigating departures from such standards or from the accounting requirements of this Act and taking steps to secure compliance with them.

(4) Regulations under this section may contain such transitional and other supplementary and incidental provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.".'.
42 Clause 18, page 33, line 19, leave out from '1985' to end of line 21.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 38 to 42 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
43 Clause 18, page 34, line 6, leave out 'and' and insert —
'(bb) make consequential amendments of or repeals in other provisions of this Act, or in other enactments, and'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43. I have already spoken to this amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[Amendment No. 43A not moved.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
44 Clause 18, page 34, line 7, after 'such' insert 'transitional and other'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 44.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
45 Clause 18, page 34, line 10, leave out '258' and insert `Schedule 10A'.
46 Clause 19, page 34, line 14, leave out 'sections are' and insert 'section is'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 en bloc. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 338, 345, 357 and 372A.
These amendments make one change to the definition of a subsidiary undertaking and related changes to the interpretation provisions presently found in Section 258 and now recast into a new schedule. Clause 19 and related provisions are a technical and complex part of the Bill, but nonetheless important since they determine whether or not a body falls to be treated as a subsidiary undertaking for the purposes of the accounting provisions in the Companies Act. A number of detailed points on the provisions were discussed when the Bill was last before the House.
The amendments remove ambiguities and close loopholes in the definition of a subsidiary undertaking to prevent companies from excluding bodies which they control from the consolidated accounts without justification. In doing that, care is taken not to bring within the definition bodies which
616
quite rightly should not be caught. I recognise that it is not easy to meet those twin objectives perfectly; but the clause, with those changes, goes a long way to meeting that objective. The result is certainly a significant improvement to an important provision within the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord quite simply but sincerely for his explanation because it helps to define subsidiary undertakings.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
7 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
47 Clause 19, page 34, line 18, leave out 'Act' and insert Tart'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47. At the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 51 to 75 en bloc. These amendments simply tidy up the minor definitions and index of defined terms in Clause 20. They do not make substantive changes to any of the definitions.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne).
Lord Peston: My Lords, I have a simple query which I think may be answered in a very straightforward way in reference to the definitions. Am I to understand that these are not changes in definitions in any way that is significant? However am I also to understand that where these definitions appear, they are all definitions that are known to and fully accepted by the accounting profession?
I ask the question because as an economist most of them seem fairly nonsensical in economics terms. I never expect economics and accounting to coincide; but it would be of some interest to me at least to be assured that the accounting profession has been fully consulted and that in its view the definitions make sense even though, as an economist, I could have a great deal of fun exposing their meaninglessness.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am happy to confirm for the noble Lord that these amendments are fully understood by the relevant experts.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
48 Clause 19, page 34, line 28, leave out from 'to' to 'the' in line 29 and insert 'exercise a dominant influence over'.
49 Page 35, line 9, at end insert —
'(6) Schedule 10A contains provisions explaining expressions used in this section and otherwise supplementing this section.'.
50 Page 35, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 45 on page 36 and insert —
'(2) Schedule (Parent and subsidiary undertakings: supplementary provisions) to this Act (parent and

617
subsidiary undertakings: supplementary provisions) is inserted after Schedule 10 to the Companies Act 1985, as Schedule 10A.'.
51 Clause 20, page 38, line 37, leave out 'Act' and insert 'Part'.
52 Page 39, line 8, at end insert —
"capitalisation", in relation to work or costs, means treating that work or those costs as a fixed asset;'.
53 Page 39, line 11, at end insert —
"'fixed assets" means assets of a company which are intended for use on a continuing basis in the company's activities, and "current assets" means assets not intended for such use;'.
54 Page 39, line 20, at end insert —
' "purchase price", in relation to an asset of a company or any raw materials or consumables used in the production of such an asset, includes any consideration (whether in cash or otherwise) given by the company in respect of that asset or those materials or consumables, as the case may be;'.
55 Page 39, line 33, at end insert —
' "turnover", in relation to a company, means the amounts derived from the provision of goods and services falling within the company's ordinary activities, after deduction of —

(i) trade discounts,

(ii) value added tax, and

(iii) any other taxes based on the amounts so derived'.

56 Page 39, line 35, leave out 'Act' and insert 'Part'.
57 Page 39, line 39, at end insert —
'(2A) References in this Part to "realised profits" or "realised losses", in relation to a company's accounts, are to such profits or losses of the company as fall to be treated as realised in accordance with principles generally accepted, at the time when the accounts are prepared, with respect to the determination for accounting purposes of realised profits or losses.
This is without prejudice to—

(a) the construction of any other expression (where appropriate) by reference to accepted accounting principles or practice, or

(b) any specific provision for the treatment of profits or losses of any description as realised.'.

58 Page 39, line 44, column 1, after 'accounting', insert 'reference' date and accounting'.
59 Page 39, line 44, at end insert—

'accounting standards and applicable accounting standards

section 255E'.

60 Page 39, leave out line 45 and insert—

'annual accounts (generally) (includes notes to the accounts)

section 262(1)

section 261(2)'.

61 Page 39, line 48, at end insert—

'balance sheet (includes notes)

section 261(2)'.

62 Page 39, leave out line 50 and insert—

'banking group

section 255A(3)'.

63 Page 39, line 50, at end insert—

'capitalisation (in relation to work or costs)

section 262(1)'

64 Page 39, leave out lines 52 and 53 and insert—

'current assets fellow subsidiary undertaking

section 262(1)

section 259(4)'.

65 Page 40, leave out lines 2 to 4 and insert—

'fixed assets

section 262(1)'.

66 Page 40, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—

'insurance group

section 255A(4)'.

67 Page 40, leave out lines 14 to 20 and insert—

'land of freehold tenure and land of leasehold tenure (in relation to Scotland)

—in Schedule 4

paragraph 93 of that Schedule

—in Schedule 9

paragraph 36 of that Schedule

lease, long lease and short lease

—in Schedule 4

paragraph 83 of that Schedule

—in Schedule 9

paragraph 34 of that Schedule

listed investment

paragraph 84 of that Schedule

—in Schedule 4

—in Schedule 9

paragraph 33 of that Schedule'.

68 Page 40, line 21, leave out '261' and insert '261(1)'
69 Page 40, line 22, column 2, leave out 'section' 257 and 258' and insert 'section 257 and Schedule 10A'
70 Page 40, leave out lines 29 to 32 and insert—

'profit and loss account (includes notes)

section 261(2)

(in relation to company not trading for profit) provision

section 262(2).

—in Schedule 4

paragraphs 88 and 89 of that Schedule

—in Schedule 9

paragraph 32 of that Schedule

purchase price

section 262(1).'.

71 Page 40, leave out lines 34 and 35 and insert—

'realised losses and realised profits

section 262(2A)'.

72 Page 40, line 35, at end insert—

'reserve (in Schedule 9)

paragraph 32 of that Schedule'.

73 Page 40, line 38, at end insert—

'special provisions for banking and insurance companies and groups

sections 255 and 255A'.

74 Page 40, line 39, column 2, leave out 'sections 257 and 258' and insert—

'section 257 and Schedule 10A'.

75 Page 40, leave not lines 41 and 42 and insert—

'turnover

section 262(1)'.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 48 to 75 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Strathclyde).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
76 Clause 22, page 41, line 4, leave out from first 'The' to 'that' in line 5 and insert 'main purposes of this Part are to secure'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 76. At the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 78, 79, 83 and 449.
These amendments adjust the boundary between matters which are subject to the special competition regime for auditing which is set up by the Bill and matters which remain subject to the general provisions of competition law. They were produced by the Government to meet concern that it was not

619
always as clear as might be what was covered by the Bill's regime and that in some respects the coverage of the Bill's regime seemed too wide. The chief effect of the amendments is that the competition regime in the Bill will no longer cover matters which are properly dealt with under competition law generally.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment —(Lord Strathclyde).
Lord Peston: My Lords, I take it that we are right in looking at the whole group of amendments and not just at Amendment No. 76. Again, I rise simply for my own interest and enlightenment. The noble Lord did not say why Amendment No. 78 was as it is. Since I cannot work out why it is as it is, I should simply like to know what Amendment No. 78 does. I take it that it does not do anything at all but I should like to be reassured on that point.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am delighted to enlighten the noble Lord. I am sure that none of our amendments does nothing at all. This amendment is no exception. It provides that the matters with which Clause 28(1) says that a supervisory body is concerned should include the eligibility of persons for company audit work rather than the persons so eligible. Clause 28(3) provides that references to rules of a supervisory body in Part II are to be interpreted as references to rules on, among others, the matters specified in Clause 28(1), and rules on these matters therefore fall to be considered under the competition regime. However, a body may have a rule which applies in relation to a person who is eligible for appointment as a company auditor but which has no bearing on his initial or continuing eligibility, and it is only rules on this narrower front which we think are relevant to the competition regime in the Bill.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will wish to reflect on my words.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
77 Clause 22, page 41, line 10, leave out from beginning to first 'and' in line 11 and insert 'Chapter V of Part XI of the Companies Act 1985;'.
78 Clause 28, page 43, line 40, leave out 'persons eligible' and insert 'eligibility of persons'.
79 Page 44, line 3, leave out from 'enforce' to end of line 5 and insert 'and which are 'relevant for the purposes of this Part.
This includes rules relating to the admission and expulsion of members of the body, so far as relevant for the purposes of this Part.'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 77 to 79 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
80 Clause 29 page, 44, line 15, leave out from 'was' to end of line 18 and insert 'by virtue of membership of a body recognised for the purposes of section 389(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1985 qualified for appointment as auditor of a company under that section immediately before 1st January 1990, and immediately before the commencement of section 23 above,'.
81 Page 44, line 24, leave out from 'before' to end of line 26 and insert '1st January 1990, and immediately before the commencement of section 23 above, was qualified for appointment as auditor of a company under section 389 of the Companies Act 1985 otherwise than by virtue of membership of a body recognised for the purposes of section 389(1)(a)—'.
82 Page 44, line 44, at end insert
'(4A) A person who—

(a) began before 1st January 1990 a course of study or practical training leading to a professional qualification in accountancy offered by a body established in the United Kingdom, and

(b) obtained that qualification on or after that date and before 1st January 1996,

shall be treated as holding an appropriate qualification if the qualificaton is approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection.
(4B) Approval shall not be given unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the body concerned has or, as the case may be, had at the relevant time adequate arrangements to ensure that the qualification is, or was, awarded only to persons educated and trained to a standard equivalent to that required in the case of a recognised professional qualification,'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 80 to 82 en bloc. These amendments concern the persons on whom the eighth directive allows us to confer approval to carry out audits. The directive, in Article 12, permits us to confirm the right to practise of those with existing rights, and this was provided for in Clause 29. However, we can only confer these so-called "grandfather rights" on persons who had the right to practise at the date at which the directive is to come into force; namely, 1st January 1990. Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 restrict the right to those persons.
The directive also allows us to approve persons who were in the course of studying for a qualification at the time the directive is to come into force. Amendment No. 82 now takes up this option in the directive. It follows the directive in limiting the concession to persons who obtain the qualification on or after 1st January 1990 and before 1st January 1996.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, again I wish simply to clarify Amendment No. 82. As I understand it, essentially the amendment deals with people who are in process of becoming qualified. Am I then to understand that after 1996 we revert to what one might call the normal way of doing things; namely, fully qualified people from then on will be capable of meeting these conditions? To put the question differently: there must be a significance to January 1996 but the world goes on after 1996. So does what happens after 1996 just become a normal arrangement, as it were?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with the permission of the House, the new arrangement appears to confirm that one cannot be a student for ever.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
83 Clause 30, page 45, leave out lines 6 to 12 and insert 'which the body has power to enforce and which are relevant for the purposes of this Part.
This includes rules relating to —

(a) admission to or expulsion from a course of study leading to a qualification,

(b) the award or deprivation of a qualification, or

(c) the approval of a person for the purposes of giving practical training or the withdrawal of such approval,

so far as relevant for the purposes of this Part.'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 83.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
84 Clause 30, page 45, line 15, leave out from beginning to 'to' in line 16 and insert 'all or any class of persons holding or seeking to hold a qualification, or approved or seeking'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 84. This brings the definition of what is "guidance" issued by a qualifying body into line with the definition of a supervisory body's "guidance" in Clause 28.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
85 Clause 33, page 46, line 24, leave out from first 'The' to 'a' in line 25 and insert 'Secretary of State shall make regulations requiring the keeping of.
86 Page 46, line 26, leave out 'under their rules'.
87 Page 46, leave out line 30 and insert 'The regulations shall provide that each person's entry in the register shall give —'.
88 Page 46, line 34, leave out from 'as' to end of line 35 and insert 'may be specified by the regulations'.
89 Page 46, line 36, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert— '(3) The regulations may impose such obligations as the Secretary of State thinks fit —

(a) on recognised supervisory bodies,

(b) on persons eligible for appointment as company auditor, and

(c) on any person with whom arrangements are made by one or more recognised supervisory bodies with respect to the keeping of the register.

(4) The regulations may include provision —

(a) requiring the register to be open to inspection at such times and places as may be specified in the regulations or determined in accordance with them,

(b) enabling a person to require a certified copy of an entry in the register, and

622

(c) authorising the charging of fees for inspection, or the provision of copies, of such reasonable amount as may be specified in the regulations or determined in accordance with them;

and may contain such other supplementary and incidental provisions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(5) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) The obligations imposed by regulations under this section on such persons as are mentioned in subsection (3)(a) or (c) are enforceable on the application of the Secretary of State by injunction or, in Scotland, by an order under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988.'.
90 Clause 34, page 47, line 1, leave out from beginning to first 'the' in line 2 and insert 'The Secretary of State shall make regulations requiring recognised supervisory bodies to keep and make available to the public'.
91 Page 47, line 3, leave out 'its' and insert 'their'.
92 Page 47, line 7, at end, insert 'and such other information as may be specified in the regulations'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 85 to 92 en bloc. At the same time I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 94, 104, 107 and 425. These amendments concern the information which recognised supervisory bodies are to be required to make available to the public. Noble Lords criticised the original approach in the Bill, which was that the bodies should be under a joint duty to maintain a register of company auditors. Some of the prospective recognised bodies felt that difficulties might arise if the bodies failed to agree. They suggested that each of the recognised supervisory bodies should be required to maintain a register.
The amendments replace the existing provisions in Clauses 33 and 34 with a power enabling the Secretary of State to make provision for the matters with which the clauses are concerned by regulations. In view of the professional bodies' responsibility for maintaining the register, we intend to make regulations along the lines that the Institutes of Chartered Accountants propose; that is to say, each recognised supervisory body will be required to maintain a register, required to co-operate in sharing the information in their possession, and required to make available the information described in Clause 34 in respect of those company auditors who are their members. We also intend that the regulations should require persons eligible for appointment as company auditor to use the title of registered auditor when signing company audit reports. This requirement would be enforced through the rules of a recognised supervisory body.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, have the Government given up on the idea of a joint register? It is a matter that occupied our attention for some time when the Bill was before your Lordships' House. Have the institutes failed to find any formula? If not, how are the Government proposing to make regulations to achieve a joint register, which is obviously the right system to have?

623
We had discussions on the name, registered auditor, in Committee. Is this a requirement of the directive or have the Government in their regulatory mood decided to put it in the Bill?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, before making regulations we shall of course discuss the matter further with professional bodies to see whether a way acceptable to the professional bodies could be found whereby they could share the task of maintaining the register. However, for the present such agreement is not apparent and therefore we must make the provision for the individual registers as these clauses do.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
93 Page 47, line 8, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—
'(2) The regulations may impose such obligations as the Secretary of State thinks fit —

(a) on recognised supervisory bodies,

(b) on persons eligible for appointment as company auditor, and

(c) on any person with whom arrangements are made by one or more recognised supervisory bodies with respect to the keeping of information.

(3) The regulations may include provision —

(a) requiring that the information be open to inspection at such times and places as may be specified in the regulations or determined in accordance with them,

(a) requiring that the information be open to inspection at such times and places as may be specified in the regulations or determined in accordance with them,

(b) enabling a person to require a certified copy of the information or any part of it, and

(c) authorising the charging of fees for inspection, or the provision of copies, of such reasonable amount as may be specified in the regulations or determined in accordance with them;

and may contain such other supplementary and incidental provisions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(4) The regulations may make different provision in relation to different descriptions of information and may contain such other supplementary and incidental provisions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(5) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) The obligations imposed by regulations under this section on such persons as are mentioned in subsection (2)(a) or (c) are enforceable on the application of the Secretary of State by injunction or, in Scotland, by an order under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988.'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord first answer the question that I asked about the name of registered auditors? He did not answer it. I asked a question when we were discussing the last group of amendments. It was whether the name "registered auditors" was required by the directive or whether it was a matter that the Government had put in.
624
I find Amendment No. 93 gives governments enormous powers. I know that the Government are intent on regulating everything. But I cannot understand why the Government should produce an amendment which allows the Secretary of State under negative procedure to impose obligations as he thinks fit,
"on recognised supervisory bodies, on persons eligible for appointment as company auditor, on any person with whom arrangements are made",
and so on. I find the procedure another cop out.
I am speaking to Amendment No. 93. However, I should perhaps have waited until the noble Lord the Deputy Speaker had asked me to speak to Amendment No. 93A.
7.15 p.m.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 93
93A Leave out lines 23 to 25 and insert —
("(5) Regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I apologise to the House and to the noble Lord the Deputy Speaker for being out of order. I hope that the House will forgive me. It is extremely difficult when we have these very complex grouped amendments to follow the right procedure. I thought that I was reasonably expert in the procedure of the House. However, I apologise that I was out of order.
I beg to move Amendment No. 93A standing in my name and which requires the affirmative procedure for the provisions mentioned under Commons Amendment No. 93. I do not wish to go over the arguments that I have deployed previously. As a matter of principle, the concept of regulations which the Secretary of State may issue as he thinks fit, simply because the Government have nothing that they can put into the primary statute, is one to which I object. The powers under negative procedure to impose obligations on the Institute of Chartered Accountants, or anybody else who is eligible for appointment as company auditor, or regulations which may include provision for anything whatsoever—including the kitchen sink —are a matter to which noble Lords, as Members of a revising House, ought to pay a little more than passing attention. It is for that reason that I put down my amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 93A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 93, be agreed to. —(Lord Williams of Elvel.)
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I intervene briefly —usually hopelessly —simply to say that I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has said about the excessive use of regulations because the Government are unable to draft the primary legislation in a satisfactory form, although it runs into hundreds of pages.
This is a matter of principle which is objected to by many people on both sides of the House. It arises time after time. I do not know what we are going to do about it. We are getting very close to a government

625
of which either Oswald Mosley or Stafford Cripps might well have been very proud.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, whenever one sees that regulations are to be produced by the Secretary of State one is at least naturally cautious. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, in supporting what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will not mind my saying that I did not too much care for the last sentence of his intervention a moment ago.
The Government are always ready to consider arguments from your Lordships that regulation-making powers should be subject to the positive rather than the negative resolution procedure. I have already explained that our present intention is that the regulations and the register covered by Clause 33 should be along the lines that the Institute of Chartered Accountants have proposed. It may be helpful if I say why we think that it would be better not to set down the precise arrangements in the Bill, but rather give some scope for a different approach to be adopted, if that were thought to be desirable by those responsible for maintaining the register and the information mentioned in Clause 34.
It may be that once the potential, recognised supervisory bodies get down to the detailed arrangements for maintaining the register they will decide that it would be better if they worked together in running a single register or perhaps set up a single body to run it on their behalf. As we know, the Institute of Chartered Accountants had difficulty with our original suggestion that the maintenance of the register ought to be a joint responsibility. However, I think that everyone recognises that it would be best if we could avoid the duplication which the institute's alternative suggestion involves.
If that were so, it may be that they would wish the body also to hold in one place the information presently covered by the requirements in Clause 34. I note that it is only regulations under that clause, and not Clause 33, which the noble Lord wishes to make subject to the negative resolution procedure. In order to permit this change of approach we have also decided to make the requirements as to information in Clause 34 equally capable of being prescribed in regulations.
It will be apparent from what I have said that all that we are concerned with in these regulations is essentially the form and place of holding the information. On this, we are ourselves happy to be guided by what is the consensus among the potentially recognised bodies. After all, they will be responsible for maintaining the information. I cannot believe that each House should automatically have to give positive resolution in favour of regulations merely setting out the mechanics of exactly how the bodies are to maintain the information. It is surely right that the presumption should be that the regulations will be approved unless a noble Lord or a Member of another place wishes to object. I hope therefore that your Lordships will
626
not be persuaded by the arguments that we have heard.
I hope that my noble friend will now recognise that there is no sinister purpose in the regulation-making powers that we propose in this case and that indeed the last sentence of his earlier intervention was inappropriate.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Lord was critical of the fact that I did not seek to make the regulations under Clause 33 subject to affirmative procedure, but concentrated on Clause 34.
Clause 34 has as it rubric:
"Information about firms to be available to the public".
The clause as drafted states:
"A recognised supervisory body shall keep available at its registered or principal office the following information with respect to the firms eligible under its rules for appointment as a company auditor".
If the Secretary of State is to be allowed to make whatever regulations he feels fit regarding the disclosure of information about firms to be available to the public, it is quite a different matter to that of whether they should be on the register of auditors. We are talking about information about firms. It may happen that the Secretary of State decides to publish the names of all the divorced wives of the partners. If he thinks fit, he is entitled to do so under negative procedure. I find that offensive.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, because for some time he and I have seen eye to eye on this type of matter. Amendment No. 33 is fine because we can argue about whether it should be subject to affirmative or negative resolution. However, the subject of this amendment needs discussion in this House and in another place before any Secretary of State issues regulations regarding information about firms to be made available to public. That is the point that I am making.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I may have spoken strongly and offended my noble friend. However, he will recall that both Sir Oswald Mosley and Sir Stafford Cripps believed strongly that there should be skeletal legislation and as much government by order and regulation as conceivably possible. It may be that his particular regulation is not unduly sinister, but it is the generality of such provisions in statute after statute that I find objectionable. It is on that principle that I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord 'Williams of Elvel.
7.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 93A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 93, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 86.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Monson, L.

Blease, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Blyth, L.

Ogmore, L.

Butterfield, L.

Peston, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

David, B.

Seear, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Serota, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Shepherd, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Galpern, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

White, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Kimball, L.

Astor, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Barber, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blake, L.

Lyell, L.

Borthwick, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Morris, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Munster, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Nelson, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Cox, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Crathorne, L.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

Dundee, E.

Sharples, B.

Elles, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Southborough, L.

Ferrers, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Fortescue, E.

Stockton, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strange, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Suffield, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Haig, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Torrington, V.

Harlech, L.

Tranmire, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Harvington, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L.

Vinson, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Westbury, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wynford, L.

Joseph, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment No. 93A disagreed to accordingly.
7.29 p.m.
On Question, Amendment No. 93 agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration of Commons amendments be adjourned until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Amendment) Order 1989
7.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale): rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 23rd August be approved. [28th Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The effect of this order is to make blackmail a scheduled offence under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. It is unusual in that the order came into effect on 24th August by executive action of my right honourable friend but under the 1978 Emergency Provisions Act it has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament within 40 days otherwise it lapses.
The House will be aware of the background. The authorities in Northern Ireland face a very serious problem, additional but also related to that of terrorism, of paramilitary and other kinds of racketeering. It takes a variety of forms, and affects a range of industries and occupations. The building and entertainment industries have been particular targets. We know only too well that building contractors are regularly intimidated by paramilitaries seeking to extort financial benefit from their contracts.
Your Lordships may recall the 1987 "Cook Report" programme "Worse than the Mafia" in which the journalist Roger Cook, posing as a business financier, was approached by two men in a car park in Craigavon who sought to extort so-called "protection" money from him; their conversation was recorded by Mr. Cook and as a result of his considerable courage—to which the trial judge justly paid tribute—those individuals, and a number of others, were arrested and successfully prosecuted with conspiracy to intimidate and blackmail. The witnesses in that case gave exceptionally strong evidence against the accused at great personal risk to themselves.
In the entertainment industry, Northern Ireland has recently seen a number of serious instances where visiting entertainment groups have been approached by paramilitaries seeking to extort money from them. At the end of October, for instance, a large Hallowe'en funfair, which was due to be held in Belfast, had to be cancelled when paramilitaries demanded protection money from the organisers. The organisers I believe lost a considerable amount of money and the enjoyment of thousands of families was ruined.
That is the general background to this order. Indeed, new instances of this particularly vicious type of activity, which casts such a serious blight over whole sectors of Northern Ireland's economy,

629
come to light almost every week. But there is also another kind of intimidation with which Northern Ireland is only too familiar: that is the intimidation of jurors and witnesses more widely. It has been a matter of considerable concern to the prosecuting authorities that cases which involve blackmail should be open to trial before juries, so exposing jurors to considerable personal risk and jeopardising prosecutions. It was in view of that concern, and following a number of recent court cases involving charges of blackmail and intimidation, that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made the order on 17th August by the urgent procedure laid down by Section 32(3) of the Emergency Provisions Act 1978. That procedure allows an order to come into effect immediately, but it is then subject to approval by both Houses within 40 sitting days. The Secretary of State believed that further delay in ending this legislative anomaly would be wrong and would be contrary to the public interest.
In one respect, the order simply remedies an anomaly in the legislation and follows the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Colville in his reports on the operation of the emergency provisions Acts in 1987 and 1988. As your Lordships will be aware, scheduled offences are those offences which are tried in Northern Ireland by the Crown Court sitting without a jury, unless they are certified out by the Attorney-General. The intention was to make blackmail a scheduled offence back in 1987. For technical reasons the relevant legislation has however never been commenced, and until August this year, blackmail remained unscheduled. The prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland have therefore been faced either with bringing cases of blackmail before a jury, or of dropping the blackmail charge altogether, and charging intimidation instead. The offence of intimidation —which was and is a scheduled offence —carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment; that of blackmail, 14 years. There is of course a very real difference between the deterrent and practical effects of these sentences.
The order removes an anomaly which was giving real difficulties to the authorities in dealing with blackmail cases. Although the offence of blackmail is now scheduled, individual cases may be certified out by the Attorney-General where there appears to be no terrorist or paramilitary involvement. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 23rd August be approved. [28th Report from the Joint Committee] —(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, as the Minister has explained, this brief order gives effect to a recommendation made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, when he reviewed in 1987 and again in 1988 the operations of the emergency provisions Act.
I read the report of the noble Viscount. He tells us how the police complained to him that blackmail was not an offence specified in Schedule 4 of the emergency provisions Act 1978 and the noble Viscount thought that was really absurd. In the result, the police in Northern Ireland had to use that substitute and lesser charge of intimidation.
630
By virtue of this order the offence of blackmail will be inserted in Schedule 4. With that amendment we are entirely in accord. However, we recall that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, also recommended in the 1988 review that a procedure for handling scheduled offences should be reversed. The Minister has touched upon the procedure of certifying out rather than certifying in. The noble Viscount recommended that the Attorney-General should adopt a system of certifying cases in for trial. When we say that, we mean in for trial by a Diplock court rather than the present arrangement of certifying out, provided of course that there is no evidence of a paramilitary connection.
The noble Viscount (who I see is in his place) argued that such a change would have a value as a statement of priorities. It would be a signal that the Government were committed to returning to as much judicial normality as possible so that the emergency provisions should be limited to the minimum essential.
We on these Benches deeply regret that that recommendation has not as yet been accepted by the Government. I wonder whether the Minister can give the House an indication of why it has not been accepted or whether it is still under active consideration. However, with those few comments on behalf of these Benches we warmly support the order.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall just respond to that specific point made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. We have no plans at present to allow an order allowing certifying in. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Colville will be considering scheduled offences, Diplock courts and so on in his enhanced review of the emergency provisions Act. We are still giving active serious consideration to certifying in as my right honourable friend the previous Secretary of State said in the emergency provisions Act renewal debate back in March of this year. However, there is no decision yet as to the result of that active serious consideration.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Youth Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1989
7.40 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th July be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this draft order makes provision for the creation of a Youth Council for Northern Ireland with advisory functions and executive powers. It will replace the existing Youth Committee and, together with the existing Youth Forum and Standing Conference of Youth Organisations, representing the interests of young people and major voluntary youth organisations in Northern Ireland, will combine to provide an effective top tier of management for the youth service.
The decision to create a Youth Council with these functions was one of a package of measures announced by government in response to a major review of the youth service, which was launched in 1986. The review was initiated by the Department of Education at the request of the youth service community, whose lobbying had encouraged the Education Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly to report on some aspects of the service. During the extensive consultative stage of the review, there was a wide degree of support from both statutory and voluntary youth organisations, among other issues, that a restructured upper tier of the service offered the most effective means by which the service could be developed through the 1990s and beyond. The draft order seeks to create that structure.
The new Youth Council will benefit greatly from the important contribution made by the Youth Committee, whose term of office expired on 30th June 1989. I should like to take this opportunity to pay my own tribute to the valuable service which the chairmen and members of that committee have given over the years and in particular to their keen interest in the welfare of young people.
The House may find it helpful if I briefly outline the structure and extent of the youth service and the respective roles which the Youth Council and government will play in the future.
The youth service in Northern Ireland is composed of a statutory and voluntary sector. The statutory sector is under the control of education and library boards and consists of some 190 youth clubs and 21 residential centres. The main roots of the youth service are, however, firmly embedded in the voluntary sector, which comprises over 2,000 youth units attracting a membership in the order of 150,000 young people. These are supported by about 275 full-time youth workers and about 2,000 part-time paid workers and 12,000 volunteers. In financial terms the overall cost of support given by government to the youth service amounted, in the last financial year, to over £10 million.
Within the revised structure the Department of Education will retain overall responsibility for youth service policy in Northern Ireland. It will make an annual grant to the Youth Council and will make grants available to voluntary organisations for capital provision and persons undertaking approved courses of training or retraining. The Youth Council will take on the advisory and co-ordinating roles of the existing Youth Committee and will assume, from the department, responsibility for the payment of grants to various youth headquarter bodies. As part of its managerial role it will promote and encourage cross-community activity within the new curriculum of the youth service and will take the lead in encouraging enterprise, self-help and self-determination among young people.
While I do not think it would be very profitable to go through the articles one by one I should like to highlight a change —if I did not, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, would —which has been made to Article 5 of the proposal, as a
632
result of recommendations from interested bodies thrown up during the consultation period.
Article 5 of the proposal contemplated that the net approved expenditure of the Youth Council would be met by the department after it had been incurred. A number of respondents to the published proposal took the view that this level of financial control could serve to limit the council's effectiveness of action. The department has accepted the representations and Article 5 of the draft order confers on the Youth Council grant-in-aid status. This will enable it to determine its own financial priorities within a total annual grant and to carry forward to the following financial year, within limits, unexpended balances of grant and funds attracted from other sources.
The provision of a Youth Council with its own secretariat marks a significant step forward in the central management of the youth service in Northern Ireland and I commend the draft order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th July be approved. —(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the provisions of this order. Although we welcome the order, I propose to spend a little time in commenting on some of its provisions. I do so partly in order to obtain clarification and information, and partly in order to illustrate once again the inadequacy of the Order in Council procedure.
This order, we submit, is long overdue. Can the Minister explain why it was not introduced well before last June when the advisory committee for Northern Ireland was wound up? The Province has been without a central youth forum for almost five months. Why should that be so? Is that fair to the youth organisations in Northern Ireland?
The Minister has not given the House an indication of when this order will be implemented. Can he tell the House when the Youth Council will be set up and when the members will be appointed? Can he give us an indication of the approximate date when the council will hold its first meeting? Are we thinking of next January, next March or next June on the anniversary of the winding up of the Youth Committee? There is considerable unease in Northern Ireland that they have been left without a central youth forum for five months and even now they do not know when the Youth Council will be operational.
I turn to the provisions of the order. We are pleased on this side of the House to agree and to go along with the functions which are to be vested in the council. We note that it will not be a purely advisory body. We welcome in particular a duty to encourage cross-community activity by the youth services in Northern Ireland.
Having said that, there are a number of puzzling features about this order. For example, I am puzzled that the Youth Council may only receive donations with the approval of the department. That is an odd state of affairs. If the council is offered a donation —perhaps 1,000 or even £1,000 —free of

633
conditions, why can that not be accepted without first having to obtain the prior approval of the Department of Education? It seems to me to be a pretty absurd requirement. If the donation were made subject to conditions there might be a case for obtaining approval; but the order makes clear that the consent of the department must be obtained before the council can accept a donation.
If this order had been introduced as a Bill, we would have tested the wording of, for example, Articles 4(3)(b) and 4(3)(c). It seems to me to have been too narrowly drawn. Thus, we would have attempted to insert the word "lectures" or the words "fund raising activities" in Article 4(3)(b).
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but did he say "lecherous"?
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I said "lectures". I am not lecturing the House on that. Again, we would have attempted to insert the word "film" in Article 4(3)(c). These are small points but they are matters that we could have tested had this order been subject to a Bill procedure.
Turning to the constitution of the council which is to be found in the schedule, I cannot help observing that the duration in office of the chairman and vice-chairman is not specified. Why is that? Why should it not be specified? Will the Minister help us and the people of Northern Ireland by telling the House for how long they are to hold office? These are pretty straightforward questions. Are they to hold office for three, four, five or 10 years or otherwise? I would not expect this point to be covered in the order, but it is something on which we could seek guidance in Committee. Can the Minister tell us what salaries will be paid to the chairman and vice-chairman respectively?
I turn to the membership of the council. There is nothing in the order about the total membership. Can the Minister tell the House what it will be? We are also particularly interested to learn what proportion of the total membership will be drawn from the district councils, the education and library boards and from the voluntary sectors respectively. Is it envisaged that at least one-half of the membership will be drawn from the voluntary sector? Would that be a reasonable assumption to make? We would welcome guidance on the membership and the sectors from which it is to be drawn.
I very much welcome what the Minister had to say about Article 5. Nevertheless, we on this side of the House are still uneasy about the relationship between the Youth Council, the Department of Education and the Civil Service head of that department as set out in the order. There is no reference in the order to the poor Minister; the relationship is between the department and the Civil Service head of that department.
I have gone very quickly through the order and I cannot help but observe that at least the following powers have been reserved to the department or the head of the department. There is the right to veto a candidate on the shortlist for the key post of chief officer of the council. Is it fair to the council that
634
the department should have the right to veto a candidate for the shortlist regarding this, key post? Again, I cannot help but observe that the department has reserved to itself the right to make directions relating to the employment of staff by the council. Will there be a direction about the appointment of the doorman or the secretaries? How wide will this reservation be and why should it be necessary?
The department has even reserved to itself the right to make directions governing the appointment of a committee. I have already noted that this council cannot accept a donation without the approval of the department. These powers limit considerably the powers of the council. It appears to me that it will be no more than a proxy for the Department of Education or the head of that department. If we were in Committee we would have pressed the department jolly hard to justify each one of these limitations but we are deprived of that opportunity.
If the council is to discharge its duty of assisting in the co-ordination and efficient use of the resources of the youth services which is placed on it by Article 4, should not all applications to the department by voluntary organisations for financial support be approved by the council? If not, why should they not be approved by this body if it is to play an effective role in giving guidance and a steer to the youth services in Northern Ireland?
I appreciate that Article 7(3) provides that in certain cases the department will "refer" —that is the key word —an application to the council. Can the Minister tell us what is meant by "refer"? Is the application referred for information or approval? What does the department mean by the use of that word? Can the Minister tell the House what will be the criteria for deciding which applications are to be referred to the council?
We on these Benches believe it is important that the relationship between the council and the department should be right. It seems to us that the department has not been given a sufficient degree of independence. That being so, we are concerned that the order does not contain machinery for resolving any dispute which may emerge between the council on the one hand and the department or the Civil Service head of it, on the other.
It has always been my experience when drawing up a constitution for a body which stands in the relationship of dependency to another body, that it is always wise to provide within the constitution a machinery for resolving disputes between the two bodies. On that matter the order is silent. We believe that time may well show that omission to be a flaw in the document which depends entirely on trust. Of course we want trust and goodwill, but from time to time there will be disputes. In that event you normally look to the constitution to see how to resolve it. As I have said, that is a flaw in the document.
What is sad about this order which invests so much in the youth service of Northern Ireland is that there is no opportunity of correcting that flaw in this House.

635
I now refer to Article 8 which empowers the department to recover a charge from the proceeds of the sale of land or a building in respect of which the department has given financial assistance to the organisation which owns the land or property and which is now selling. We accept that there is full justification for the principle of Article 8. As we all know, there are considerable calls on Northern Ireland funds so we believe that the department is perfectly right to impose a charge when land or premises are sold so that it can recover the grant or assistance that was initially made available to the organisation.
The formula is set out in Article 8(3) and it appears to be fair. However there are two questions that I wish to put to the Minister in seeking information. I note that interest is to be paid on the sum to be recovered. But it is not clear to me, unless I have missed a line, from what date the interest is to be calculated. If it is to run from the date when the premises are sold, that would be fair. If, however, it is to run from the date when the grant was originally made, that would be unfair. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us.
The formula refers to the current value of the land or building. That will generally be the amount it might be expected to realise if sold on the open market. That is fair enough. But if the building or the land is no longer required by the voluntary organisation which owns it, will the noble Lord confirm that it can be transferred by that organisation to another youth organisation at a price below current market value? I ask that question because some of us in England and Wales have spent a good deal of time seeking (but unsuccessfully) to persuade the Charity Commission to allow property of a charity to be transferred to another charity at a price below market value. That is our experience. I wonder what would be the position in Northern Ireland. It is not clear to me from the order.
I should be grateful if the Minister can reply to my questions, and if not tonight then by letter. We on these Benches sincerely hope that the order will be of immense value to the young people of Northern Ireland. I hope that the noble Lord can tell us this evening that it will be speedily implemented.
8 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord's list of questions took me a little by surprise in their detail. I am perfectly happy to be called to account for any order I put before the House. However, the noble Lord will remember that I said only the other day that the Government as a whole would welcome advice on a better system than the Order in Council route of legislating for Northern Ireland. I do not believe there is any dispute between us on that. As much as the noble Lord dislikes it, I have yet to see any concrete proposals from him on what route we could take.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the noble Lord misunderstands the position. It is not just the case that a Northern Ireland spokesman on these Benches is desperately unhappy about the procedure. There
636
is a consensus that the procedure is totally inadequate. I took the course this evening of going through the order in some detail merely to reinforce the point that the procedure is inadequate. For as long as we do not have devolved government in Northern Ireland I suggest that legislation should proceed by way of a Bill and not by Order in Council.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I take the point. The noble Lord represents a widely held view from which I do not totally dissociate myself, as I have made clear on several occasions. However, the fact remains that, in this uncertain world in Northern Ireland, legislation has to be arrived at by one route or another. To have no legislation at all —I do not think that even in his most pessimistic mood the noble Lord would suggest that —would cause a political vacuum, which is what we are all trying to avoid.
The noble Lord asked about the reason for delay. The delay was due to the alteration of the draft Order in Council to give the Youth Council grant-in-aid status. The order will become operative one month from Royal Assent, which I would anticipate means around 19th January 1990. The Youth Council itself will be constituted by mid-January. The first meeting is expected at the end of January or early in February.
The noble Lord asked who will be meeting at that time. Members will be appointed according to their individual contribution to the council. It is not intended that they shall be representative of any sectors. Nonetheless, most sectors will be covered by the appointments. What we are interested in is the appointment of people rather than the appointment of representatives. We want whoever is there to do a good job. Their term of office will be for four years. But we have to roll this on a little or the whole council will come up for renewal at the same date, which is not very sensible. Therefore it is anticipated that half the members will be appointed for two years and the other half for four years. It will have a chairman and a vice chairman who will be paid £3,600 and £2,300 respectively.
The noble Lord asked more detailed questions about the individual articles. The Youth Council will assume advisory functions and in addition will be given executive powers under which it will assess and pay block grants to voluntary headquarters organisations. The powers being retained by the department, about which the noble Lord slightly complained, are exactly the same as those which apply in relation to its other educational responsibilities. Therefore there is consistency in this matter.
The noble Lord mentioned departmental approval, especially with regard to appointments. The departmental approval is required merely for the chief executive.
Lord Prys-Davies: No, my Lords. I understand from the order that the Youth Council will require the approval of the department for its scheme for appointing staff generally.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall come back to that point in a moment. As I understand the position, departmental approval is required only to guard against the appointment of an unqualified or unfit person. That refers particularly to the chief executive. It would be quite wrong to have such persons in the two positions which I have just mentioned.
The noble Lord will have noticed Article 7(4), which explains that the council will make recommendations to the department on the applications. The department will consider these recommendations before deciding on those applications. The noble Lord talked about paragraph (5) of Article 8. If he casts his eye a little further, he will discover that paragraph (8) defines the term "relevant date" for the purpose of paragraph (5) as the date of disposal of the land or building where this is done prior to the department serving notice on the voluntary organisation of the determination of the date, and in any other case, the date determined by the department.
I think that what I have said covers at least some of the points made by the noble Lord. I shall look carefully at the Official Report because he produced quite a phalanx of questions for me to answer. I assure the noble Lord that if I find any inaccuracies in my answers, or any questions which I have left unanswered, I shall be delighted to put the matter right.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.11 to 8.30 p.m.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
94 Clause 39, page 48, line 38, leave out 'maintained' and insert, 'kept under regulations'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 94.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
95 Clause 40, page 49, line 17, after first 'of, insert', or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of,'.
96 Page 49, line 25, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
'(3) Where an offence under this Part committed by a partnership is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a partner, he as well as the partnership is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
638
(4) Where an offence under this Part committed by an unincorporated association (other than a partnership) is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any officer of the association or any member of its governing body he as well as the association is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 95 and 96, as corrected.
The amendments bring the provisions in Part II of the Bill on the circumstances in which a partner in a partnership or an officer or member of a governing body of any other unincorporated association is to be regarded as having committed an offence into line with the treatment of officers in bodies corporate. Noble Lords may recall that the noble Lord, Lord Benson, argued at an earlier stage that the provisions be consistent.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as the noble Lord was good enough to draw our attention to the correction to Amendment No. 96, I in turn take the opportunity to draw his attention to the fact that at least one of the corrections in a long list of corrections that has been supplied to us is itself in need of correction; that is, the correction to Amendment No. 413. I merely take the opportunity to mention that point now so that the Government can correct the correction before we arrive at Amendment No. 413 later this week.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
97 Clause 41, page 49, line 39, after 'tried' insert 'an information laid'.
98 Page 50, line 4, after 'information' insert 'laid'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 97 and 98.
The amendments bring the period in Clause 41, within which prosecution in England and Wales of a person who has committed an offence under Part II of the Bill must take place, into line with the standard provisions on time limits for the prosecution of offences.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, if the amendments bring English law into line with Scottish law, we are on safe ground.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
99 Clause 44, page 51, line 6, leave out 'made by statutory instrument'.
100 Page 51, line 10, after 'by', insert 'it, subject to such exceptions and reservations as may be specified in'.
101 Page 51, line 19, leave out subsections (3) to (6) and insert—
'(3) Any transfer of the functions under the following provisions shall be subject to the reservation that they remain exercisable concurrently by the Secretary of State—

(a) section 36 (power to call for information), and

(b) section 38 (directions to comply with international obligations);

and any transfer of the function of refusing to approve an overseas qualification, or withdrawing such approval, on the grounds referred to in section 31(3) (lack of reciprocity) shall be subject to the reservation that the function is exercisable only with the consent of the Secretary of State.
(4) A delegation order may be amended or, if it appears to the Secretary of State that it is no longer in the public interest that the order should remain in force, revoked by a further order under this section.
(5) Where functions are transferred or resumed, the Secretary of State may by order confer or, as the case may be, take such other functions supplementary or incidental to those transferred or resumed as appear to him to be appropriate.
(6) The provisions of Schedule 10 have effect with respect to the status, constitution and proceedings of a body established by a delegation order, the exercise by it of certain functions transferred to it and other supplementary matters.
(7) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument.
(8) An order which has the effect of transferring or resuming any functions shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament; and any other description of order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
102 Clause 46, page 52, line 34, leave out 'the order' and insert 'an order under section 44'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 99, 100 to 102, and 433 to 444.
The amendments concern the statutory body and the transfer of functions to it. As the Bill left your Lordships' House, a delegation order had the effect of transferring to the body established by it all the functions of the Secretary of State, subject to the exceptions and qualifications in Clause 44(2) and 44(3), and any supplementary or incidental functions which appeared to the Secretary of State at the time to be appropriate.
An order resuming functions had the effect of transferring back to him all the functions transferred or conferred. The chief effect of the amendments is to enable the Secretary of State to transfer only some of the functions; to enable the transfer of any function to be made subject to any exceptions or reservations he wishes to make; and to enable him to make further orders transferring, conferring or resuming functions or otherwise amending earlier orders. Most of the amendments are simply consequentials upon those changes. However, Amendment No. 435 provides that the statutory body itself, rather than the Secretary of State, is to pay the remuneration and other payments received by members of the body.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may refer the noble Lord to Amendment No. 101 of which subsection (4) states:
640
"A delegation order may be amended or, if it appears to the Secretary of State that it is no longer in the public interest that the order should remain in force, revoked by a further order under this section".
Is the implication that the Secretary of State only can amend an order, or can Parliament amend the order?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the key subsection of Amendment No. 101 is subsection (4) which allows the Secretary of State to amend a delegation order by a further order. The rest of the amendment is concerned with adapting certain of the existing provisions of Clause 44 to the possibility that there may be several orders transferring or resuming functions or otherwise amending an earlier order. The Secretary of State only is responsible for making or amending the order.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, with the leave of the House, before the noble Lord sits down, do I understand that those orders are made under the negative procedure?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, yes.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
103 Clause 48:
Leave out Clause 48 and insert —
'Power to make consequential amendments.
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such amendments of enactments as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the provisions of this Part having effect in place of section 389 of the Companies Act 1985.
(2) That power extends to making such amendments as appear to the Secretary of State necessary or expedient of—

(a) enactments referring by name to the bodies of accountants recognised for the purposes of section 389(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1985, and

(b) enactments making with respect to other statutory auditors provision as to the matters dealt with in relation to company auditors by section 389 of the Companies Act 1985.

(3) The provision which may be made with respect to other statutory auditors includes provision as to—

(a) eligibility for the appointment,

(b) the effect of appointing a partnership which is not a legal person and the manner of exercise of the auditor's rights in such a case, and

(c) ineligibility on the grounds of lack of independence or any other ground.

(4) The regulations may contain such supplementary, incidental and transitional provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
(5) The Secretary of State shall not make regulations under this section with respect to any statutory auditors without the consent of —

(a) the Minister responsible for their appointment or responsible for the body or person by, or in relation to whom, they are appointed, or

(b) if there is no such Minister, the person by whom they are appointed.

(6) In this section a "statutory auditor" means a person appointed auditor in pursuance of any enactment authorising or requiring the appointment of an auditor or auditors.
(7) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuant of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
Power to make provision in consequence of changes affecting accountancy bodies.
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such amendments of enactments as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of any change of name, merger or transfer of engagements affecting—

(a) a recognised supervisory or qualifying body under this Part, or

(b) a body of accountants referred to in, or approved, authorised or otherwise recognised for the purposes of, any other enactment.

(2) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 103. Associated with Amendment No. 103 are Amendments Nos. 103A and 103B which I dare say the noble Lord will move in a moment.
The amendment concerns the revision of provisions in other enactments which define the right to audit or carry out other accountancy functions in specified circumstances. In almost all cases eligibility is linked to the eligibility to conduct company audits which is dealt with in Section 389 of the Companies Act 1985. Since the Bill repeals Section 389 and replaces it with a new system, consequential changes need to be made to the other enactments. In the Bill as it left your Lordships' House, Schedule 12 contained some of the amendments to other Acts consequential on the provisions of Part II. Later amendments remove Schedule 12 and the amendment replaces it with a power to make all the necessary consequential amendments by regulations.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 103
103A Leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert —
("(7) Regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 103A, and it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 103B. They are essentially the same point.
Yet again we have in the Bill powers granted to the Secretary of State to make amendments to enactments. I am not so worried about what is marked as subsection (7) of the amendment; I am more worried about subsection (2) and the power to make provisions in consequence of changes affecting accountancy bodies.
It seems to me reasonable that the Secretary of State should have the power to make consequential amendments, although, together with the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, I believe that enactments, primary legislation, should not be amended by order. Nevertheless, if we accept that
642
basic principle—which I do with great reluctance—it seems reasonable that it should be accepted in this case.
What worries me is that the Secretary of State may, under the proposed Commons amendment,
"make such amendments of enactments as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of any change of name, merger or transfer of engagements".
I do not see why, just because one body merges with another body, the Secretary of State should have unlimited powers to make any amendments of enactments as appear to him to be expedient. I find that a very curious expression. Yet again, I am trying to assert the supremacy of Parliament rather than the supremacy of the Executive. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 103A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 103, be agreed to.—(Lord Williams of Elvel.)
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, once again we are dealing with enactments by regulations. I suppose that one must still make the statutory objection from these Benches to the wide powers given to the Secretary of State to deal with legislation, subject once again to the negative resolution procedure. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, is not in his place. He would strongly support what I am saying. However there is very little we can do except to make the objection. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have already deployed the arguments as to why we do not agree with the concern expressed by noble Lords on this matter. I do not intend to repeat those arguments in detail. Perhaps I may address my reply to Amendment No. 103B, to which the noble Lord referred.
This amendment concerns the regulation-making power in the second new clause. Would the positive resolution procedure be appropriate there, the noble Lord wondered. The power in this new clause is a power to make by regulations such amendments of enactments as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in consequence of a change of name, merger or transfer of engagements affecting accountancy bodies recognised under statutes. Perhaps I may take a hypothetical example. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy are both bodies recognised under statute. Suppose they were to decide to merge. There have in fact been suggestions to this effect. If that were to happen, this power would enable the Secretary of State to make amendments replacing the references to the old bodies with references to the new body. I am sure that the noble Lord would accept that as being a reasonable and sensible way of proceeding. I hope that by expressing that as an example, he will be persuaded not to press his amendments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: No, my Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord exactly demonstrates my point. These should not be negative procedures but affirmative procedures. In this House of Parliament we should have a chance to discuss these matters. I am sorry, I must press the amendment.
8.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 103A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 103, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 70.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Serota, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Shepherd, L.

David, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hacking, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Peston, L.

White, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Seear, B.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Barber, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blake, L.

Lyell, L.

Borthwick, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brentford, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Butterfield, L.

Morris, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Caithness, E.

Mountevans, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Carnock, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Polwarth, L.

Crathorne, L.

Reay, L. [Teller.]

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

Dundee, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sharples, B.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Southborough, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gisborough, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strange, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Haig, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Harlech, L.

Harvington, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Torrington, V.

Hives, L.

Tranmire, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hooper, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Vinson, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wynford, L.

Joseph, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment No. 103A disagreed to accordingly.
8.52 p.m.
[Amendment No. 103B not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 103 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
104 Clause 50 page 54, line 1, at end insert
'"address" means—

(a) in relation to an individual, his usual residential or business address, and

(b) in relation to a firm, its registered or principal office in Great Britain;'.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 104.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
105 Clause 50, page 54, line 9, at end insert—
"'enactment" includes an enactment contained in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978;'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 105.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain to the House why he is moving Amendment No. 105 and speaking to Amendment Nos. 108 and 450?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, they are consequential to Amendment No. 103.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
106 Clause 50, page 54, line 18, at end insert—
'(2) For the purposes of this Part a body shall be regarded as "established in the United Kingdom" if and only if—

(a) it is incorporated or formed under the law of the United Kingdom or a part of the United Kingdom, or

(b) its central management and control is exercised in the United Kingdom;

and any reference to a qualification "obtained in the United Kingdom" is to a qualification obtained from such a body.'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 106. I shall also speak to Amendment No. 109.
These amendments provide a meaning for the expressions in Part II that a body must be established in the UK, and a recognised professional qualification must be obtained in the UK.
The Bill as it left your Lordships' House provided that supervisory and qualifying bodies must be established in the UK, and a recognised professional qualification must be obtained in the UK. The present amendments define these expressions. They provide that a body is to be regarded as established in the UK if it is incorporated or formed under our law, or is managed and controlled from here. The obtaining of a qualification in the UK is to be construed accordingly.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I wish to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on Amendments Nos. 105, 108 and 450. The noble

645
Lord moved Amendment No. 105; but the groupings list I have groups Amendment No. 105 with Amendments Nos. 108 and 450. The noble Lord said that they were consequential on Amendment No. 103. I do not believe that to be the case as regards the definitional clause. I do not believe that Amendments Nos. 106 and 109 are consequential on anything.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not saying that they are.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if I may continue my sentence, I should add that groupings are suggested by the Government to ensure that the task of noble Lords in this House who have to deal with this complicated legislation at this complicated stage is made easier and not more difficult.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
107 Clause 51, page 54, line 21, at end insert—

'address

section 50(1)'.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 107. I have already spoken to this amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
108 Page 54, line 30, at end, insert—

'enactment

section 50(1)

established in the United Kingdom

section 50(2)'.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 108. I have already spoken to this amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
109 Clause 51, page 54, line 37, at end, insert—

'obtained in the United Kingdom

section 50(2)'.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 109.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
110 Clause 60, page 58, line 19, at end insert —
'(1A) Omit subsection (1) (bodies in relation to which powers exercisable), and—

(a) in subsections (2) and (3) for "any such body" substitute "a company",

(b) in subsections (4) and (5) for "any body" and "a body" substitute "a company", and

646

(c) in subsections (5) and (6) for "the body" substitute "the company".'.

111 Clause 62, page 60, line 44, at end insert—
'(aa) in the opening words for "body" (twice) substitute "company"'
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 110 and 111. I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 114 and 115. As a consequence of certain repeals of provisions in the Companies Act 1985 by the Financial Services Act 1986, unregistered companies, which at present fall within the scope of Section 447 of the 1985 Act, would no longer be covered. Section 447 gives the Secretary of State power to require documents for inspection. These amendments will ensure that Section 447 powers continue to apply to unregistered companies. The purpose of this amendment is therefore to preserve the status quo: there will be no widening or narrowing of the powers.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
112 Clause 62, page 61, line 8, leave out 'III' and insert 'II, III or VII'.
113 Page 61, line 11, at end insert—
'(ee) after that paragraph insert —
"(hh) for the purpose of enabling or assisting a body established by order under section 44 of the Companies Act 1989 to discharge its functions under Part II of that Act, or of enabling or assisting a recognised supervisory or qualifying body within the meaning of that Part to discharge its functions as such;";'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 112 and 113. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 116 to 119 and 122 to 124. These amendments are by way of being consequential on other provisions in Parts II, III and VII of the Bill. They amend the Companies Act 1985, the Financial Services Act 1986, the Building Societies Act 1986, the Banking Act 1987 and Clause 81 of the Bill to provide gateways for disclosure of restricted information for the purpose of enabling or assisting the carrying out of functions under Parts II, III and VII of the Bill.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
114 Clause 63, page 62, line 22, at end insert —
'(1A) In subsection (1) for the opening words down to "insurance company" substitute "An officer of a company, or of an insurance company", for "body's" substitute "company's" and for "the body" substitute "the company".'.
115 After Clause 67, insert the following new clause:
Investigation of unregistered companies.
'. In Schedule 22 to the Companies Act 1985 (provisions applying to unregistered companies), for the entry relating to Part XIV substitute—

"Part XIV (except Section 446)

Investigation of companies and their affairs; requisition of documents.

—".'.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 114 and 115. I spoke to these amendments earlier.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
116 Clause 71, page 67, line 2, leave out 'III' and insert 'II, III or VII'.
117 Page 67, line 3 at end insert—
'(aa) for paragraph (e) substitute —
"(e) for the purpose—

(i) of enabling or assisting a designated agency to discharge its functions under this Act or Part VII of the Companies Act 1989,

(ii) of enabling or assisting a transferee body or the competent authority to discharge its functions under this Act, or

(iii) of enabling or assisting the body administering a scheme under section 54 above to discharge its functions under the scheme;";

(ab) after paragraph (h) insert—
"(hh) for the purpose of enabling or assisting a body established by order under section 44 of the Companies Act 1989 to discharge its functions under Part II of that Act, or of enabling or assisting a recognised supervisory or qualifying body within the meaning of that Part to discharge its functions as such;";'.
118 After Clause 75, insert the following new Clause—
'Amendment of the Building Societies Act 1986.
In section 53 of the Building Societies Act 1986 (confidentiality of information obtained by the Building Societies Commission), in subsection (7)(b) (functions of Secretary of State for purposes of which disclosure may be made) after sub-paragraph (ii) insert—
, or
(iii) Part II, III or VII of the Companies Act 1989;".'
119 Insert the following new Clause—
'Amendments of the Banking Act 1987.
1.—(1) In section 84(1) of the Banking Act 1987 (disclosure of information obtained under that Act), the Table showing the authorities to which, and functions for the purposes of which, disclosure may be made is amended as follows.
(2) In the entry relating to the Secretary of State, in column 2, for "or the Financial Services Act 1986" substitute ", the Financial Services Act 1986 or Part II, III or VII of the Companies Act 1989".
(3) For the entry relating to inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State substitute—

"An inspector appointed under Part XIV of the Companies Act 1985 or section 94 or 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986.

Functions under that Part or that section.".

(4) For the entry beginning "A person authorised by the Secretary of State" substitute—

"A person authorised to exercise powers under section 44 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982, section 447 of the Companies Act 1985, section 106 of the Financial Services Act 1986 or section 78 of the Companies Act 1989.

Functions under that section.".

(5) For the entry relating to a designated agency or transferee body or the competent authority (within the meaning of the Financial Services Act 1986) substitute—

"A designated agency (within the meaning of the Financial Services Act 1986)

Functions under the Financial Services Act 1986 or Part VII of the Companies Act 1989.

A transferee body or the competent authority (within the meaning of the Financial Services Act 1986.)

Functions under the Financial Services Act 1986.".'.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 116 to 119.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
120 Clause 79, page 73, line 28, leave out subsections (3) to (5).
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, these amendments and new clauses have the purpose of broadening the categories of organisation which will commit an offence—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Lord speaking to Amendments Nos. 120, 126, 127 and 128?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the answer is, yes. I apologise for not making that clear. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 120 and will speak also to Amendments Nos. 126, 127 and 128.
These amendments and new clauses have the purpose of broadening the categories of organisation which will commit an offence if they fail to comply with requirements to give information imposed on them under Clause 77, or if they wrongfully disclose information safeguarded under Clause 80.
Non-compliance offences under Clause 79 may be committed at present by any person, which includes either individuals or "bodies corporate". Subsection (3) deals specifically with offences by bodies corporate; its provisions are also applied by Clause 80(b) to wrongful disclosure offences under that clause. The aim is to replace the subsections with Amendment No. 127 (a new clause), which provides for cases in which partnerships and unincorporated associations, as well as bodies corporate, are proceeded against in respect of such offences. This new clause also ensures that personal liability in

649
the event of offences being committed by these organisations is defined in the same way for each one, thus maintaining consistency.
There are additional, consequential changes. Clause 79(4) defines restrictions on proceedings in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland in the event of a non-compliance offence by a body corporate. This is replaced and expanded by Amendment No. 126, which covers restrictions on proceedings for offences under Clauses 79 and 80 by bodies corporate, partnerships, and unincorporated associations. Likewise, Clause 79(5) defines the place and time at which summary proceedings for non-compliance may be brought against a body corporate. Amendment No. 128 replaces and expands these provisions to cover unincorporated associations and, where appropriate, proceedings under Clause 80 (there is no mention of Clause 80 in subsection (1) of this new clause, because the offences in question are triable either way.)
Amendment No. 120 (which operates together with Amendment No. 121) is introduced purely to delete subsections (3) to (5) of Clause 79, and subsection (6) of Clause 80, to make way for the new, expanded clauses. I beg to move.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Trelgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT
121A The Lord Williams of Elvel to move, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 121 but propose the following Amendment in lieu hereof—
Clause 80, page 74, line 31, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) The Secretary of State may by order impose such restrictions as he sees fit on the disclosure of information relating to a person where such disclosure might damage unfairly the reputation of that person.
(7) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.').
Lord Peston: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Williams, I beg to move Amendment No. 121A, and I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that it involves leaving out subsection (6) of Clause 80, which the Government's Amendment No. 121 does as well; so there is nothing between us on that matter. The content of Amendment No. 121A, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, is a subject that we have raised on more than one occasion earlier in discussing this Bill. But we do not apologise for coming back to it. It is our last chance to make the point and to plead with the Government to take seriously the problem here.
Our concern is that although, of course, where the need arises, various bodies will have to investigate companies in one form or another, it appears that in doing that certain individuals are not merely named—I shall not on this occasion mention cases, but we have all read about them in the financial press —but have their careers ruined, even though, so far as one can see, they are entirely innocent.
650
Our concern is not of course in any way to protect the guilty, but we do not believe that the Government have addressed themselves sufficiently to what we refer to here, which is the disclosure of information which might unfairly damage certain reputations.
We know that we live in an imperfect world, and that in the pursuit of certain offences it may well be that people who involve themselves with companies of one sort or another have to take the rough with the smooth. Nonetheless, we are not convinced that the balance here is right. We are not convinced that there is sufficient concern with the smooth, and we are not convinced that there is sufficient antipathy to the rough.
Several noble Lords have pushed this matter for some months now and have not got anywhere. It was our hope that the Government would have found a way. We appreciate that it is technically rather difficult, because we do not want investigations per se to be held back. But we are not happy with the current state of affairs or with the fact that this Bill does not seem to do anything about improving matters.
We have pressed the point several times. All the amendment says, quite specifically, is that it gives the Secretary of State power to intervene here. I shall not press this amendment, because my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel has made the point about regulations on more than one occasion today. We do not back down from the fact that we think our view of this matter is entirely correct. But I, at least, have never believed in banging my head against a brick wall for more than a couple of hours, and we are past that couple of hours.
That is the reason why the second part is in the amendment. We want the Secretary of State to have the possibility of intervening, but of course we would still like to have what we regard as proper parliamentary control. That is what lies behind this amendment. I fully accept that we have been over the ground before and that this is our last chance. We think that it is an important matter, and that is why we commend the amendment to your Lordships.
Moved, That Amendment No. 121A, in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 121, be agreed to. —(Lord Peston.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if I may just reinforce what my noble friend Lord Peston said, the problem since our discussion in Committee has arisen on County NatWest and there have been serious criticisms of what the inspectors have revealed and of how careers have been affected in that case. I believe that the Secretary of State, whoever he may be at any particular time, has to take very seriously the problem of people's reputations. There are public figures in industry and in banking whose careers could be affected by reports which are issued by people who may not be qualified to issue those reports. I also happen to believe, as an addendum, that the 1948 system of DTI investigations of one QC and one accountant is now largely out of date. If there was one change that I should like to have seen in the Bill, it would have been a change in how the DTI conducts its investigations, which, I recognise, it must do.

651
However, failing that —that reform should have been contained in the Bill—reputations have been and will be affected. I hope that natural justice will prevail in the Government and that the amendment will be accepted in the spirit in which it is offered. The reputation of people in high places in banking, commerce and industry should not be affected—if I may again have the noble Lord's attention —by extraneous comments from inspectors who are not necessarily qualified and do not necessarily know what they are talking about.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, we strongly support the amendment. I spoke at considerable length in the earlier stages of the Bill pointing out that natural justice demands that there should be a safeguard for individuals against extraneous statements made in good faith. This is a proper safeguard in those circumstances.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that even if I do not look at him I still listen to him most carefully. My ears are tuned in his direction and I can hear him in whatever direction I happen to be looking.
I wish to say at the outset that the amendment applies only to information from or to a foreign regulator and, therefore, the example that the noble Lord gave was not a particularly appropriate one. The Government have already made clear their firm commitment to dealing fairly with those whose activities are scrutinised in any of the investigations and inspections dealt with in the Bill and elsewhere.
Clause 80 deals specifically with information obtained from, or on behalf of, other countries' regulatory authorities. Together with Clause 81, it already controls tightly the disclosure of such information without the consent of the person to whom it relates. Those to whom information is disclosed are themselves also subject to exactly the same constraints on any further disclosure. The disciplinary and other non-judicial proceedings for which information may be disclosed are not public, and information disclosed for such purposes will therefore continue to be protected by Clause 80. So, in practice, it will be impossible for such information to become public except when it is used publicly in court or tribunal proceedings. I am sure that it is not the noble Lord's intention to restrict the use of information in court, in accordance with all the relevant rules of evidence.
The amendment therefore does not add anything to the strong protection already provided in Clauses 80 and 81. I hope that the noble Lord will see fit not to press it.
Lord Peston: My Lords, on the technical point that the noble Lord made about the precise nature of the amendment relative to the clause or, rather, the other amendment to which it is attached, he is right to say that the reason for that is a procedural reason; namely, that we can amend only what comes back to us from the other place. One has used that point to establish the general principle. We are in no doubt
652
that the amendment is somewhat artificial in the way it is tabled, but it is the general principle that concerns us.
As such, I am not reassured by the noble Lord's answer. It does not seem to me that when the Bill becomes an Act it will protect the innocent in the sense in which we want it to do. It seems to me that the Government are essentially not willing to move on this matter, or have not been willing, for reasons which somewhat escape me. The noble Lord has not even argued in the way that I thought he would—to the effect that, if we gave the innocent too much protection, we would also protect the guilty. That was at least a possible argument, although it is not an argument that one would necessarily accept.
Having said that, I do not think that it would be appropriate to divide the House, much as I disagree with the Government on the matter. I hope that we can rely on the point made by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel; namely, that as we seem to have a Companies Bill every year, I assume that one will appear in the coming year, one way or another. I can only say that we shall come back to this theme again. Having expressed my disappointment, we shall leave the matter at that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
121 Clause 80, page 74, line 31, leave out subsection (6).
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 121.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
122 Clause 81, page 75, line 29, column 2, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'Part II, this Part or Part VII'.
123 Page 75, leave out lines 48 to 51 and insert—

'A designated agency within the meaning of the Financial Services Act 1986

Functions under that Act or Part VII of this Act.

A transferee body or the competent authority within the meaning of the meaning of the Financial Services Act 1986

Functions under that Act.'.

124 Page 76, line 23, at end insert—

'A body established by order under section 44 of this Act.

Functions under Part II of this Act.

A recognised supervisory or qualifying body within the meaning of Part II of this Act.

Functions as such a body.'.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 122 to 124 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
125 After Clause 81, insert the following new clause—
'Exercise of powers in relation to Northern Ireland
.—(1) The following provisions apply where it appears to the Secretary of State that a request for assistance by an overseas regulatory authority may involve the powers conferred by section 77 being exercised in Northern Ireland in relation to matters which are transferred matters within the meaning of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
(2) The Secretary of State shall before deciding whether to accede to the request consult the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland, and if he decides to accede to the request and it appears to him —

(a) that the powers should be exercised in Northern Ireland, and

(b) that the purposes for which they should be so exercised relate wholly or primarily to transferred matters,

he shall by instrument in writing authorise the Department to exercise in Northern Ireland his powers under section 77.
(3) The following provisions have effect in relation to the exercise of powers by virtue of such an authority with the substitution for references to the Secretary of State of references to the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland—

(a) section 78 (exercise of powers by officer, &c.),

(b) section 449 of the Companies Act 1985, section 53 or 54 of the Building Societies Act 1986, sections 179 and 180 of the Financial Services Act 1986, section 84 of the Banking Act 1987 and sections 80 and 81 above (restrictions on disclosure of information), and

(c) section (Prosecutions) (authority for institution of criminal proceedings);

and references to the Secretary of State in other enactments which proceed by reference to those provisions shall be construed accordingly as being or including references to the Department.
(4) The Secretary of State may after consultation with the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland, revoke an authority given to the Department under this section.
(5) In that case nothing in the provisions referred to in subsection (3)(b) shall apply so as to prevent the Department from giving the Secretary of State any information obtained by virtue of the authority; and (without prejudice to their application in relation to disclosure by the Department) those provisions shall apply to the disclosure of such information by the Secretary of State as if it had been obtained by him in the first place.
(6) Nothing in this section affects the exercise by the Secretary of State of any powers in Northern Ireland—

(a) in a case where at the time of acceding to the request it did not appear to him that the circumstances were such as to require him to authorise the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland to exercise those powers, or

(b) after the revocation by him of any such authority;

and no objection shall be taken to anything done by or in relation to the Secretary of State or the Department on the ground that it should have been done by or in relation to the other.'
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 125. The new clause deals with the need to ensure that the new powers to assist overseas regulators conferred by Clauses 76 to 81 can be exercised in Northern Ireland within the Northern Ireland constitution.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
126 After Clause 81, insert the following new clause —
'Prosecutions.
'Proceedings for an offence under section 79 or 80 shall not be instituted—

(a) in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions;

(b) in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.'

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 126.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
127 After Clause 81, insert the following new clause—
'Offences by bodies corporate, partnerships and unincorporated associations.
.—(1) Where an offence under section 79 or 80 committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(2) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as to a director of a body corporate.
(3) Where an offence under section 79 or 80 committed by a partnership is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a partner, he as well as the partnership is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(4) Where an offence under section 79 or 80 committed by an unincorporated association (other than a partnership) is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any officer of the association or any members of its governing body, he as well as the association is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.'
128 After Clause 81, insert the following new clause—
'Jurisdiction and procedure in respect of offences.
.—(1) Summary proceedings for an offence under section 79 may, without prejudice to any jurisdiction exercisable apart from this section, be taken against a body corporate or unincorporated association at any place at which it has a place of business and against an individual at any place where he is for the time being.
(2) Proceedings for an offence alleged to have been committed under section 79 or 80 by an unincorporated association shall be brought in the name of the association (and not in that of any of its members), and for the purposes of any such proceedings any rules of court relating to the service of documents apply as in relation to a body corporate.
(3) Section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and Schedule 3 to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (procedure on charge of offence against a corporation) apply in a case in which an unincorporated association is charged in England and Wales with an offence under section 79 or 80 as they apply in the case of a corporation.
(4) In relation to proceedings on indictment in Scotland for an offence alleged to have been committed under section 79 or 80 by an unincorporated association, section 74 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (proceedings on indictment against bodies corporate) applies as if the association were a body corporate.
(5) Section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 and Schedule 4 to the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (procedure on charge of offence against a corporation) apply in a case in which an unincorporated association is charged in Northern Ireland with an offence under section 79 or 80 as they apply in the case of a corporation.
(6) A fine imposed on an unincorporated association on its conviction of such an offence shall be paid out of the funds of the association.'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos.127 and 128 together.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
129 Leave out Clauses 83 to 94 and insert—
'Charges requiring registration
.The following sections are inserted on Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
"Registration in the company charges register Introductory provisions.
395.—(1) The purpose of this Part is to secure the registration of charges on a company's property.
(2) In this Part—
"charge" means any form of security interest (fixed or floating) over property, other than an interest arising by operation of law; and
"property", in the context of what is the subject of a charge, includes future property.
(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of this Part where the property subject to a charge is situated.
(4) References in this Part to "the registrar" are—

(a) in relation to a company registered in England and Wales, to the registrar of companies for England and Wales, and

(b) in relation to a company registered in Scotland, to the registrar of companies for Scotland;

and references to registration, in relation to a charge, are to registration in the register kept by him under this Part.
Charges requiring registration
396.—(1) The charges requiring registration under this Part are—

(a) a charge on land or any interest in land, other than—

(i) in England and Wales, a charge for rent or any other periodical sum issuing out of the land,

(ii) in Scotland, a charge for any rent, ground annual or other periodical sum payable in respect of the land;

(b) a charge on goods or any interest in goods, other than a charge under which the chargee is entitled to possession either of the goods or of a document of title to them,

(c) a charge on intangible movable property (in Scotland, incorporeal moveable property) of any of the following descriptions —

(i) goodwill,

(ii) intellectual property,

656

(iii) book debts (whether book debts of the company or assigned to the company),

(iv) uncalled share capital of the company or calls made but not paid,

(d) a charge for securing an issue of debentures, or

(e) a floating charge on the whole or part of the company's property.

(2) The descriptions of charge mentioned in subsection (1) shall be construed as follows—

(a) a charge on a debenture forming part of an issue or series shall not be treated as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) by reason of the fact that the debenture is secured by a charge on land or goods (or on an interest in land or goods);

(b) in paragraph (b) "goods" means any tangible movable property (in Scotland, corporeal moveable property) other than money;

(c) a charge is not excluded from paragraph (b) because the chargee is entitled to take possesion in case of default or on the occurance of some other event;

(d) in paragraph (c)(ii) "intellectual property" means—

(i) any patent, trade mark, service mark, registered design, copyright or design right, or

(ii) any licence under or in respect of any such right;

(e) a debenture which is part of an issue or series shall not be treated as a book debt for the purposes of paragraph (c)(iii);

(f) the deposit by way of security of a negotiable instrument given to secure the payment of book debts shall not be treated for the purposes of paragraph (c)(iii) as a charge on book debts;

(g) a shipowner's lien on subfreights shall not be treated as a charge on book debts for the purposes of paragraph (c)(iii) or as a floating charge for the purposes of paragraph (e).

(3) Whether a charge is one requiring registration under this Part shall be determined—

(a) in the case of a charge created by a company, as at the date the charge is created, and

(b) in the case of a charge over property acquired by a company, as at the date of the acquisition.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsections (1) and (2) so as to add any description of charge to, or remove any description of charge from, the charges requiring registration under this Part.
(5) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) In the following provisions of this Part references to a charge are, unless the context otherwise requires, to a charge requiring registration under this Part.
Where a charge not otherwise requiring registration relates to property by virtue of which it requires to be registered and to other property, the references are to the charge so far as it relates to property of the former description.".
The Companies charges register.
The following section is inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
The Companies charges register.
397.—(1) The registrar shall keep for each company a register, in such form as he thinks fit, of charges on property of the company.
(2) The register shall consist of a file containing with respect to each charge the particulars and other information delivered to the registrar under the provisions of this Part.
(3) Any person may require the registrar to provide a certificate stating the date on which any specified particulars of, or other information relating to, a charge were delivered to him.
(4) The certificate shall be signed by the registrar or authenticated by his official seal.
(5) The certificate shall be conclusive evidence that the specified particulars or other information were delivered to the registrar no later than the date stated in the certificate; and it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that they were not delivered earlier than that date.".
Delivery of particulars for registration.
The following sections are inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
"Company's duty to deliver particulars of charge for registration.
398.—(1) It is the duty of a company which creates a charge, or acquires property subject to a charge—

(a) to deliver the prescribed particulars of the charge, in the prescribed form, to the registrar for registration, and

(b) to do so within 21 days after the date of the charge's creation or, as the case may be, the date of the acquisition;

but particulars of a charge may be delivered for registration by any person interested in the charge.
(2) Where the particulars are delivered for registration by a person other than the company concerned, that person is entitled to recover from the company the amount of any fees paid by him to the registrar in connection with the registration.
(3) If a company fails to comply with subsection (1), then, unless particulars of the charge have been delivered for registration by another person, the company and every officer of it who is in default is liable to a fine.
(4) Where prescribed particulars in the prescribed form are delivered to the registrar for registration, he shall file the particulars in the register and shall note, in such form as he thinks fit, the date on which they were delivered to him.
(5) The registrar shall send to the company and any person appearing from the particulars to be the chargee, and if the particulars were delivered by another person interested in the charge to that person, a copy of the particulars filed by him and of the note made by him as to the date on which they were delivered.
Effect of failure to deliver particulars for registration
399.—(1) Where a charge is created by a company and no prescribed particulars in the prescribed form are delivered for registration within the period of 21 days after the date of the charge's creation, the charge is void against—

(a) an administrator or liquidator of the company, and

(b) any person who for value acquires an interest in or right over property subject to the charge,

where the relevant event occurs after the creation of the charge, whether before or after the end of the 21 day period.
This is subject to section 400 (late delivery of particulars).
(2) In this Part "the relevant event" means—

(a) in relation to the voidness of a charge as against an administrator or liquidator, the beginning of the insolvency proceedings, and

(b) in relation to the voidness of a charge as against a person acquiring an interest in or right over property subject to a charge, the acquisition of that interest or right;

and references to "a relevant event" shall be construed accordingly.
(3) Where a relevant event occurs on the same day as the charge is created, it shall be presumed to have occurred after the charge is created unless the contrary is proved.
Late delivery of particulars
400.—(1) Where prescribed particulars of a charge created by a company, in the prescribed form, are delivered for registration more than 21 days after the date of the charge's creation, section 399(1) does not apply in relation to relevant events occurring after the particulars are delivered.
(2) However, where in such a case —

(a) the company is at the date of delivery of the particulars unable to pay its debts, or subsequently becomes unable to pay its debts in consequence of the transaction under which the charge is created, and

(b) insolvency proceedings beging before the end of the relevant period beginning with the date of delivery of the particulars,

the charge is void as against the administrator or liquidator.
(3) For this purpose—

(a) the company is "unable to pay its debts" in the circumstances specified in section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986; and

(b) the "relevant period" is —

(i) two years in the case of a floating charge created in favour of a person connected with the company (within the meaning of section 249 of that Act),

(ii) one year in the case of a floating charge created in favour of a person not so connected, and

(iii) six months in any other case.

(4) Where a relevant event occurs on the same day as the particulars are delivered, it shall be presumed to have occurred before the particulars are delivered unless the contrary is proved.".
Delivery of further particulars
The following section is inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
"Delivery of further particulars
401.—(1) Further particulars of a charge, supplementing or varying the registered particulars, may be delivered to the registrar for registration at any time.
(2) Further particulars must be in the prescribed form signed by or on behalf of both the company and the chargee.
(3) Where further particulars are delivered to the registrar for registration and appear to him to be duly signed, he shall file the particulars in the register and shall note, in such form as he thinks fit, the date on which they were delivered to him.
(4) The registrar shall send to the company and any person appearing from the particulars to be the chargee, and if the particulars were delivered by another person interested in the charge to that other person, a copy of the further particulars filed by him and of the note made by him as to the date on which they were delivered.".
Effect of omissions and errors in registered particulars
The following section is inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
"Effect of omissions and errors in registered particulars
402.—(1) Where the registered particulars of a charge created by a company are not complete and accurate, the charge is void, as mentioned below, to the extent that rights are not disclosed by the registered particulars which would be disclosed if they were complete and accurate.
(2) The charge is void to that extent, unless the court on the application of the chargee orders otherwise, as against—

(a) an administrator or liquidator of the company, and

(b) any person who for value acquires an interest in or right over property subject to the charge,

659
where the relevant event occurs at a time when the particulars are incomplete or inaccurate in a relevant respect.

(3) Where a relevant event occurs on the same day as particulars or further particulars are delivered, it shall be presumed to have occurred before those particulars are delivered unless the contrary is proved.
(4) The court may order that the charge is effective as against an administrator or liquidator of the company if it is satisfied—

(a) that the omission or error is not likely to have misled materially to his prejudice any unsecured creditor of the company, or

(b) that no person became an unsecured creditor of the company at a time when the registered particulars of the charge were incomplete or inaccurate in a relevant respect.

(5) The court may order that the charge is effective as against a person acquiring an interest in or right over property subject to the charge if it is satisfied that he did not rely, in connection with the acquisition, on registered particulars which were incomplete or inaccurate in a relevant respect.
(6) For the purposes of this section an omission or inaccuracy with respect to the name of the chargee shall not be regarded as a failure to disclose the rights of the chargee.".
Memorandum of charge ceasing to affect company's property
. The following section is inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
"Memorandum of charge ceasing to affect company's property
403.—(1) Where a charge of which particulars have been delivered ceases to affect the company's property, a memorandum to that effect may be delivered to the registrar for registration.
(2) The memorandum must be in the prescribed form signed by or on behalf of both the company and the chargee.
(3) Where a memorandum is delivered to the registrar for registration and appears to him to be duly signed, he shall file it in the register, and shall note, in such form as he thinks fit, the date on which it was delivered to him.
(4) The registrar shall send to the company and any person appearing from the memorandum to be the chargee, and if the memorandum was delivered by another person interested in the charge to that person, a copy of the memorandum filed by him and of the note made by him as to the date on which it was delivered.
(5) If a duly signed memorandum is delivered in a case where the charge in fact continues to affect the company's property, the charge is void as against—

(a) an administrator or liquidator of the company, and

(b) any person who for value acquires an interest in or right over property subject to the charge,

where the relevant event occurs after the delivery of the memorandum.
(6) Where a relevant event occurs on the same day as the memorandum is delivered, it shall be presumed to have occurred before the memorandum is delivered unless the contrary is proved.".
Further provisions with respect to voidness of charges
The following sections are inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
"Further provisions with respect to voidness of charges Exclusion of voidness as against unregistered charges
404.—(1) A charge is not void by virtue of this Part as against a subsequent charge unless some or all of the relevant particulars of that charge are duly delivered for registration—

(a) within 21 days after the date of its creation, or

660

(b) before complete and accurate relevant particulars of the earlier charge are duly delivered for registration.

(2) Where relevant particulars of the subsequent charge so delivered are incomplete or inaccurate, the earlier charge is void as against that charge only to the extent that rights are disclosed by registered particulars of the subsequent charge duly delivered for registration before the corresponding relevant particulars of the earlier charge.
(3) The relevant particulars of a charge for the purposes of this section are those prescribed particulars relating to rights inconsistent with those conferred by or in relation to the other charge.
Restrictions on voidness by virtue of this Part
405.—(1) A charge is not void by virtue of this Part as against a person acquiring an interest in or right over property where the acquisition is expressly subject to the charge.
(2) Nor is a charge void by virtue of this Part in relation to any property by reason of a relevant event occurring after the company which created the charge has disposed of the whole of its interest in that property.
Effect of exercise of power of sale
406.—(1) A chargee exercising a power of sale may dispose of property to a purchaser freed from any interest or right arising from the charge having become void to any extent by virtue of this Part

(a) against an administrator or liquidator of the company, or

(b) against a person acquiring a security interest over property subject to the charge;

and a purchaser is not concerned to see or inquire whether the charge has become so void.
(2) The proceeds of the sale shall be held by the chargee in trust to be applied —

First, in discharge of any sum effectively secured by prior incumbrances to which the sale is not made subject;

Second, in payment of all costs, charges and expenses properly incurred by him in connection with the sale, or any previous attempted sale, of the property;

Third, in discharge of any sum effectively secured by the charge and incumbrances ranking pari passu with the charge;

Fourth, in discharge of any sum effectively secured by incumbrances ranking after the charge;

and any residue is payable to the company or to a person authorised to give a receipt for the proceeds of the sale of the property.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a) prior incumbrances include any incumbrance to the extent that the charge is void as against it by virtue of this Part; and

(b) no sum is effectively secured by a charge to the extent that it is void as against an administrator or liquidator of the company.

(4) In this section—

(a) references to things done by a chargee include things done by a receiver appointed by him, whether or not the receiver acts as his agent;

(b) "power of sale" includes any power to dispose of, or grant an interest out of, property for the purpose of enforcing a charge (but in relation to Scotland does not include the power to grant a lease), and references to "sale" shall be construed accordingly; and

(c) "purchaser" means a person who in good faith and for valuable consideration acquires an interest in property.

(5) The provisions of this section as to the order of application of the proceeds of sale have effect subject to any other statutory provision (in Scotland, any other statutory provision or rule of law) applicable in any case.
(6) Where a chargee exercising a power of sale purports to dispose of property freed from any such interest or right as is mentioned in subsection (1) to a person other than a purchaser, the above provisions apply, with any necessary modifications, in relation to a disposition to a purchaser by that person or any successor in title of his.
(7) In Scotland, subsections (2) and (7) of section 27 of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 apply to a chargee unable to obtain a discharge for any payment which he is required to make under subsection (2) above as they apply to a creditor in the circumstances mentioned in those subsections.
Effect of voidness on obligation secured.
407.—(1) Where a charge becomes void to any extent by virtue of this Part, the whole of the sum secured by the charge is payable forthwith on demand; and this applies notwithstanding that the sum secured by the charge is also the subject of other security.
(2) Where the charge is to secure the repayment of money, the references in subsection (1) to the sum secured include any interest payable.".
Additional information to be registered.
. The following sections are inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985 —
"Additional information to be registered Particulars of taking up of issue of debentures.
408.—(1) Where particulars of a charge for securing an issue of debentures have been delivered for registration, it is the duty of the company—

(a) to deliver to the registrar for registration particulars in the prescribed form of the date on which any debentures of the issue are taken up, and of the amount taken up, and

(b) to do so before the end of the period of 21 days after the date on which they are taken up.

(2) Where particulars in the prescribed form are delivered to the registrar for registration under this section, he shall file them in the register.
(3) If the company fails to comply with subsection (1). the company and every officer of it who is in default is liable to a fine.
Notice of appointment of receiver or manager, &c.
409.—(1) If a person obtains an order for the appointment of a receiver or manager of a company's property, or appoints such a receiver or manager under powers contained in an instrument, he shall within seven days of the order or of the appointment under those powers, give notice of that fact in the prescribed form to the registrar for registration.
(2) Where a person appointed receiver or manager of a company's property under powers contained in an instrument ceases to act as such receiver or manager, he shall, on so ceasing, give notice of that fact in the prescribed form to the registrar for registration.
(3) Where a notice under this section in the prescribed form is delivered to the registrar for registration, he shall file it in the register.
(4) If a person makes default in complying with the requirements of subsection (1) or (2), he is liable to a fine.
(5) This section does not apply in relation to companies registered in Scotland (for which corresponding provision is made by sections 53, 54 and 62 of the Insolvency Act 1986).
Notice of crystallisation of floating charge, &c.
410.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require notice in the prescribed form to be given to the registrar of—

(a) the occurrence of such events as may be prescribed affecting the nature of the security under a floating charge of which particulars have been delivered for registration, and

(b) the taking of such action in exercise of powers conferred by a fixed or floating charge of which
662
particulars have been delivered for registration, or conferred in relation to such a charge by an order of the court, as may be prescribed.

(2) The regulations may make provision as to—

(a) the persons by whom notice is required to be, or may be, given, and the period within which notice is required to be given;

(b) the filing in the register of the particulars contained in the notice and the noting of the date on which the notice was given; and

(c) the consequences of failure to give notice.

(3) As regards the consequences of failure to give notice of an event causing a floating charge to crystallise, the regulations may include provision to the effect that the crystallisation—

(a) shall be treated as ineffective until the prescribed particulars are delivered, and

(b) if the prescribed particulars are delivered after the expiry of the prescribed period, shall continue to be ineffective against such persons as may be prescribed,

subject to the exercise of such powers as may be conferred by the regulations on the court.
(4) The regulations may provide that if there is a failure to comply with such of the requirements of the regulations as may be prescribed, such persons as may be prescribed are liable to a fine.
(5) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) Regulations under this section shall not apply in relation to a floating charge created under the law of Scotland by a company registered in Scotland.".
Copies of instruments and register to be kept by company.
The following sections are inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
"Copies of instruments and register to be kept by company Duty to keep copies of instruments and register.
411.—(1) Every company shall keep at its registered office a copy of every instrument creating or evidencing a charge over the company's property.
In the case of a series of uniform debentures, a copy of one debenture of the series is sufficient.
(2) Every company shall also keep at its registered office a register of all such charges, containing entries for each charge giving a short description of the property charged, the amount of the charge and (except in the case of securities to bearer) the names of the persons entitled to it.
(3) This section applies to any charge. whether or not particulars are required to be delivered to the registrar for registration.
(4) If a company fails to comply with any requirement of this section, the company and every officer of it who is in default is liable to a fine.
Inspection of copies and register.
412.—(1) The copies and the register referred to in section 411 shall be open to the inspection of any creditor or member of the company without fee; and to the inspection of any other person on payment of such fee as may be prescribed.
(2) Any person may request the company to provide him with a copy of —

(a) any instrument creating or evidencing a charge over the company's property, or

(b) any entry in the register of charges kept by the company, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed.

This subsection applies to any charge, whether or not particulars are required to be delivered to the registrar for registration.
(3) The company shall send the copy to him not later than ten days after the day on which the request is received or, if later, on which payment is received.
(4) If inspection of the copies or register is refused, or a copy requested is not sent within the time specified above—

(a) the company and every officer of it who is in default is liable to a fine, and

(b) the court may by order compel an immediate inspection of the copies or register or, as the case may be, direct that the copy be sent immediately.".

Power to make further provision by regulations.
The following section is inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
"Supplementary provisions
Power to make further provision by regulations.
413.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision as to the application of the provisions of this Part in relation to charges of any description specified in the regulations.
Nothing in the following provisions shall be construed as restricting the generality of that power.
(2) The regulations may require that where the charge is contained in or evidenced or varied by a written instrument there shall be delivered to the registrar for registration, instead of particulars or further particulars of the charge, the instrument itself or a certified copy of it together with such particulars as may be prescribed.
(3) The regulations may provide that a memorandum of a charge ceasing to affect property of the company shall not be accepted by the registrar unless supported by such evidence as may be prescribed, and that a memorandum not so supported shall be treated as not having been delivered.
(4) The regulations may also provide that where the instrument creating the charge is delivered to the registrar in support of such a memorandum, the registrar may mark the instrument as cancelled before returning it and shall send copies of the instrument cancelled to such persons as may be prescribed.
(5) The regulations may exclude or modify, in such circumstances and to such extent as may be prescribed, the operation of the provisions of this Part relating to the voidness of a charge.
(6) The regulations may require, in connection with the delivery of particulars, further particulars or a memorandum of the charge's ceasing to affect property of the company, the delivery of such supplementary information as may be prescribed, and may—

(a) apply in relation to such supplementary information any provisions of this Part relating to particulars, further particulars or such a memorandum, and

(b) provide that the particulars, further particulars or memorandum shall be treated as not having been delivered until the required supplementary information is delivered.

(7) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".
Other supplementary provisions.
. The following sections are inserted in part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
"Date of creation of charge.
414.—(1) References in this part to the date of creation of a charge by a company shall be construed as follows.
(2) A charge created under the law of England and Wales shall be taken to be created—

(a) in the case of a charge created by an instrument in writing, when the instrument is executed by the company or, if its execution by the company is conditional, upon the conditions being fulfilled, and

664

(b) in any other case, when an enforceable agreement is entered into by the company conferring a security interest intended to take effect forthwith or upon the company acquiring an interest in property subject to the charge.

(3) A charge created under the law of Scotland shall be taken to be created—

(a) in the case of a floating charge, when the instrument creating the floating charge is executed by the company, and

(b) in any other case, when the right of the person entitled to the benefit of the charge is constituted as a real right.

(4) Where a charge is created in the United Kingdom but comprises property outside the United Kingdom, any further proceedings necessary to make the charge valid or effectual under the law of the country where the property is situated shall be disregarded in ascertaining the date on which the charge is to be taken to be created.
Prescribed particulars and related expressions.
415.—(1) References in this Part to the prescribed particulars of a charge are to such particulars of, or relating to, the charge as may be prescribed.
(2) The prescribed particulars may, without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), include—

(a) whether the company has undertaken not to create other charges ranking in priority to or pari passu with the charge, and

(b) whether the charge is a market charge within the meaning of Part VII of the Companies Act 1989 or a charge to which the provisions of that Part apply as they apply to a market charge.

(3) References in this Part to the registered particulars of a charge at any time are to such particulars and further particulars of the charge as have at that time been duly delivered for registration.
(4) References in this Part to the registered particulars of a charge being complete and accurate at any time are to their including all the prescribed particulars which would be required to be delivered if the charge were then newly created.
Notice of matters disclosed on register.
416.—(1) A person taking a charge over a company's property shall be taken to have notice of any matter requiring registration and disclosed on the register at the time the charge is created.
(2) Otherwise, a person shall not be taken to have notice of any matter by reason of its being disclosed on the register or by reason of his having failed to search the register in the course of making such inquiries as ought reasonably to be made.
(3) The above provisions have effect subject to any other statutory provision as to whether a person is to be taken to have notice of any matter disclosed on the register.
Power of court to dispense with signature.
417.—(1) Where it is proposed to deliver further particulars of a charge, or to deliver a memorandum of a charge ceasing to affect the company's property, and—

(a) the chargee refuses to sign or authorise a person to sign on his behalf, or cannot be found, or

(b) the company refuses to authorise a person to sign on its behalf.

the court may on the application of the company or the chargee, or of any other person having a sufficient interest in the matter, authorise the delivery of the particulars or memorandum without that signature.
(2) The order may be made on such terms as appear to the court to be appropriate.
(3) Where particulars or a memorandum are delivered to the registrar for registration in reliance on an order under this section, they must be accompanied by an office copy of the order.
In such a case the references in sections 401 and 403 to the particulars or memorandum being duly signed are to their being otherwise duly signed.
(4) The registrar shall file the office copy of the court order along with the particulars or memorandum.".
Interpretation, &c.
. The following sections are inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
"Regulations.
418. Regulations under any provision of this Part, or prescribing anything for the purposes of any such provision—

(a) may make different provision for different cases, and

(b) may contain such supplementary, incidental and transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.

Minor definitions.
419.—(1) In this Part—

"chargee" means the person for the time being entitled to exercise the security rights conferred by the charge;

"issue of debentures" means a group of debentures, or an amount of debenture stock, secured by the same charge; and

"series of debentures" means a group of debentures each containing or giving by reference to another instrument a charge to the benefit of which the holders of debentures of the series are entitled pari passu.

(2) References in this Part to the creation of a charge include the variation of a charge which is not registrable so as to include property by virtue of which it becomes registrable.
The provisions of section 414 (construction of references to date of creation of charge) apply in such a case with any necessary modifications.
(3) References in this Part to the date of acquisition of property by a company are—

(a) in England and Wales, to the date on which the acquisition is completed, and

(b) in Scotland, to the date on which the transaction is settled.

(4) In the application of this Part to a floating charge created under the law of Scotland, references to crystallisation shall be construed as references to the attachment of the charge.
(5) References in this Part to the beginning of insolvency proceedings are to—

(a) the presentation of a petition on which an administration order or winding-up order is made, or

(b) the passing of a resolution for voluntary winding up.

Index of defined expressions.
420. The following Table shows the provisions of this Part defining or otherwise explaining expressions used in this Part (other than expressions used only in the same section)—

charge

sections 395(2) and 396(6)

charge requiring registration

section 396

chargee

section 419(1)

complete and accurate (in relation to registered particulars)

section 415(4)

creation of charge

section 419(2)

crystallisation (in relation to Scottish floating charge)

section 419(4)

date of acquisition (of property by a company)

section 419(3)

date of creation of charge

section 414

further particulars

section 401

insolvency proceedings, beginning of

section 419(5)

issue of debentures

section 419(1)

memorandum of charge ceasing to affect company's property

section 403,

prescribed particulars

section 415(1) and (2)

property

section 395(2)

registered particulars

section 415(3)

registrar and registration in relation to a charge

section 395(4)

relevant event

section 399(2)

series of debentures

section 419(1).".

Charges on property of overseas company.
Application of provisions to unregistered companies.
. The provisions set out in Schedule (Charges on property of oversea company) are inserted in Part XXIII of the Companies Act 1985 (overseas companies), as a Chapter III (registration of charges).'.
. In Schedule 22 to the Companies Act 1985 (provisions applying to unregistered companies), at the appropriate place insert—

"Part XII

Registration of company charges; copies of instruments and register to be kept by company.

Subject to section 718(3).".

Consequential amendments.
. The enactments specified in Schedule (Amendments consequential on Part IV) have effect with the amendments specified there, which are consequential on the amendments made by the preceding provisions of this Part.'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think it is now my duty to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 129.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Trefgarne.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 129
129A Page 25, line 25, leave out ("intangible movable").
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, we now come to an amendment to the long Commons Amendment No. 129. As I glanced through that long amendment my eye caught on the words "intellectual property" and "goodwill". It was inevitable that I should study the amendment rather carefully. The object of my amendment is to ask the Minister whether he can explain what is meant by "intangible moveable property" in relation to goodwill or even intellectual property.
In my view, those words are confusing and totally unnecessary. It is rather late in the evening to start a consideration of what is meant by "goodwill". I had the privilege of discussing in the courts at great length what is meant by "goodwill". I remember appearing before the late Mr. Justice Dankwerts when he interrupted me. He said that he used to buy his cigarettes in a tobacconist's shop where there was a very charming girl who served him. He asked me what part of the goodwill that lady represented in relation to the sale of cigarettes in the shop.
I can understand a charge requiring registration in relation to goodwill alone but I do not understand it when goodwill is defined as "intangible movable property" and I believe that some confusion arises. The same goes for intellectual property. Intellectual property is property. Why call it "intangible movable property"? In the hope that I shall be

667
shown to be wrong or have misunderstood the meaning of those words, I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 129A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 129, be agreed to.—(Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.)
9.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I too have the same problem as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, on the new Section 396 in the Companies Act. I have an even greater problem than he does because as a banker I have never understood how one can charge goodwill. I have asked various banking and accounting friends about this and nobody has come up with a satisfactory answer to how one can charge goodwill.
If one cannot charge goodwill, which is a concept that varies depending upon which accounting procedure and which method of writing off are adopted, clearly it cannot be registrable as a charge. My Amendment No. 129B seeks a government explanation of how on earth anybody can charge goodwill and therefore register that charge.
I do not wish to bore your Lordships with an explanation of how goodwill is treated in accounting terms in various conventions in various parts of the world including the European Community. I do not wish to bore your Lordships with the normal definition of goodwill that is used by bankers when they charge assets. I just wish that the Government would come forward with some definition that any serious banker, accountant or corporate lawyer can accept.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the phrase "intangible movable" is straightforward if read in context. Section 396(1) deals first in paragraph (a) with land or immovable property. It then deals in paragraph (b) with goods, which are defined as tangible movable property. Finally, in paragraph (c) it deals with intangible movable property of certain specified sorts. It therefore makes clear that the primary categorisation in logical sequence is into immovable and movable property. Movable property is in turn divisible into tangible movables and intangibles. We believe that practitioners will find this definition useful in ascertaining which types of property are subject to the requirements of these provisions. As I understand it, practitioners are also content with this form of words. I do not think that we should spend too much time on points that might have been made at Committee stage but were not.
The noble Lord referred to Amendment No. 129C during his remarks. If he prefers that I do not deal with it now, I am happy not to do so.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he help me further? So far he has made me more confused than I was as to the meaning of the words. Has he an example of what is an intangible movable property?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, these are very difficult items to define. However, if the noble Lord will refer
668
to the careful words that I produced a few moments ago, I hope that he will find the matter rather clearer.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down again, he expressed the hope that I may find the matter clearer, but he is very optimistic. I am even more confused. However, I am very glad that at this late stage I was able to produce a laugh in the Chamber.
There is little further that I can say, except to say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that in my experience I have heard of charges being made on goodwill. In that way one estimates what one's goodwill is. The estimate may be wrong by a factor of several hundred per cent. but one can say, "My goodwill is an asset of £x million". Let us take the example of Pepsi Cola, with which I was involved. We had to try to assess what its goodwill was. It was in millions of dollars. Having assessed it, one can then put it in the accounts as a charge. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Williams, wishes to say anything before I sit down.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I crave the leave of the House as always. I am afraid that in a sense we have to adopt Committee procedure.
Lord Trefgarne: Order!
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, why do we have to adopt Committee procedure? This is not the Committee stage of a Bill. For a long time I have been hearing noble Lords opposite putting points across as though we were in Committee. We are not; we are considering Commons amendments. As I understand it, the procedure in this House is that we do not spend our time bothering about small details when we are doing that. Such consideration comes earlier in the Bill in both Houses of Parliament. We waste time if we do so.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, sits down, he referred to wasting time. This is the first time that goodwill and intellectual property have been mentioned in the Bill, so far as I understand.
I have looked at the old Section 396 in the 1985 Act and those words do not appear. The wording is totally different. The Government have taken out 42 or 43 clauses, inserted other clauses and said, "They are just summarising; they are pretty well the same as the original". But the wording is totally different. In my view it is therefore perfectly proper that when the noble Lord, Lord Williams, says that he has never heard of a charge in this context I should say that I have heard of a charge. We are trying to be helpful on a very important matter. Goodwill and intellectual property are very valuable assets in companies. We must be at least pragmatic and practical at some time during the course of the evening.
I do not quite know where I stand on my enthusiasm for intellectual property. However, as the Minister cannot give any examples, I must await yet another Bill before we amend this provision. In

669
these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 129A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 129, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 129B not moved.]

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 129
129C Page 36 of the Commons Amendments, leave out the proposed new clause (Power to make further provision by regulations).
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 129C. It relates to Commons Amendment No. 129. At the outset, Amendment No. 129 states:
"Leave out Clauses 83 to 94 and insert"
15 pages of material. Therefore, Amendment No. 129C has nothing to do with the discussions which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and I have had with the Minister. This morning I discussed the groupings at length with the Government Whips' Office because it is impossible to discuss amendments to Amendment No. 129 without grouping them together.
The object of Amendment No. 129C is to leave out the proposed new clause dealing with the power to make further provision by regulations. It appears on page 36 of the Marshalled List of Commons amendments and it is a new Section 413 of the Companies Act 1985. If the Bill is passed as the Commons wish us to pass it, provision is made that,
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision as to the application of the provisions of this Part in relation to charges of any description specified in the regulations.
Nothing in the following provisions shall be construed as restricting the generality of that power".
In other words, the Secretary of State can change the whole ball of wax as and when he wishes. He can change the Act, the nature of the charges, the memoranda and the nature of the registrar's certification. In fact, he can change anything he wishes under negative procedure. Leaving aside the point argued ad nauseam and ad infinitum by the noble Lords, Lord Rippon and Lord Lloyd, and myself, that appears to be extraordinary. In the whole registration charges why not have one simple clause providing that the Secretary of State can say what he likes, when he likes?
Moved, That Amendment No. 129C, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 129, be agreed to.—(Lord Williams of Elvel.)
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I recognise the concern expressed about the inclusion of enabling powers in the Bill. But the Government have sought to include such powers only where they are thought to be appropriate. The powers in new Section 413 are not remarkable. They follow the example of other similar provisions in statutes that establish registers. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has very wide powers to make rules in respect of the land register under the Land Registration Act. Other registers, such as those for aircraft mortgages and fishing boats, are largely set up by secondary legislation. The use of secondary legislation recognises the fact that there are many detailed
670
provisions relating to registration systems that are properly dealt with outside primary legislation. These mainly concern matters of procedure, not fundamental principles of law.
We have been careful in drawing up the power in as narrow a manner as possible. The Secretary of State will be able to make further provision only as to the operation of the primary legislation. Unlike other powers he cannot amend, repeal or replace the primary legislation. He will not be able to make wide-ranging amendments to the legislation as it affects all categories of charge.
It is interesting to note the view expressed by the Inspector of Companies when the original provisions on the registration of charges were introduced as far back as the Companies Act 1900. The inspector then said:
"Considering the complicated character of this clause, and the inconvenience which may arise should it be defective, would it not be well to give power to modify the machinery of registration and the Acts incidental to it by rules".
Unfortunately, that suggestion was not taken up; but it reinforces the point that we are not suggesting anything radically new in recommending that the House approve the provisions of the new Section 413. Indeed, the power in that new section does not go so far as that suggested by the Inspector of Companies. I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is entirely appropriate for the Secretary of State to be able to complement legislation which establishes a machinery of legislation by additional provisions made by regulations.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of what this is about. That does not seem to me to answer the point which I am trying to make. If this amendment is accepted, the Secretary of State may make regulations as to the application of the provisions of this part. As we have already discussed, the whole part dealing with the registration of charges is fairly vague in its application at present. A number of lawyers, companies and banks still do not know quite how it will all work. Either we have primary legislation which sets out what will happen and sets out the basis on which it will happen or we have an alternative; namely, that there is a one clause part which says that there will be a registration of charges and regulations will be made by the Secretary of State to define what those are.
To be honest, I do not believe that the powers of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in respect of the registers which the noble Lord cited are quite as important as the registration of charges in the corporate sector, if I may speak without disrespect to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
This is a very, very important matter. Banks can live or die by registration of charges. For the Secretary of State to be able to make regulations when he feels like it about the provisions and applications of this part seems to me a very curious way of going about the business.

671
However, yet again we are up against this brick wall that the Government wish to regulate everything in sight. They do not know how they will do that and so they say that they will have a sort of Henry VIII system whereby they can do whatever they like. I am afraid that I shall continue to protest every time that this matter comes before your Lordships.
672
However, I shall not divide the House and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 129C, as an amendment to Amendment No. 129, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 129 agreed to.
9.30 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
130 Clause 95, page 93, line 26, leave out from 'of' to end of line 28 and insert, 'anything in the company's memorandum.'.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 130, 135, 136, 137, 138. These amendments and the following five groups reflect comments we have received from interested parties including the Law Society and the Law Society of Scotland, since Clauses 95 to 99 were inserted into the Bill in our Committee consideration. We are very grateful to consultees for the comments they have given us. The amendments which have resulted do not represent any change in the substance of the policy on ultra vires. But they do clarify a few issues, improve the drafting and make some changes of detail.
Amendment No. 130 extends the protection in new Section 35 against a company's lack of capacity from the case of any limitation flowing from the objects clause to any limitation there may be in the company's memorandum of association. It may be that in practice this change will make no difference; nobody has been able to point to a case in which any limitation on a company's capacity has definitely been held to arise from any provision in the memorandum other than the objects clause. However, arguments have been put to us that such limitations could in theory arise, and the present Section 35 of the Companies Act does contain a general reference to the company's memorandum.
Since our policy is one of conferring complete protection on third parties from lack of capacity of a company, we have thought it right to make it crystal clear that challenges on grounds of lack of capacity to a completed transaction by reference to the terms of the memorandum are no longer to be possible in any shape or form.
Although there are a number of other amendments coupled with this one, they are in essence minor. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. We can say at once that we welcome some of the changes in these particular amendments that were made in the other place. Perhaps I may go a little further with the noble and learned Lord's introduction of these amendments. Now that we come to Part V of the Bill I am sure the noble and learned Lord will agree that we must remember the importance of this area. It was the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who, on 21st November at col. 509 said that this matter went to the heart of the operation of the limited liability company.
In the other place the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, Mr. Maude, said in Committee, that,
674
"it is vital that the drafting of the clause is correct because it is essential to the concept of the limited liability, company, its legal personality and the balance between the board and the shareholders".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee D, 20/6/89; col. 415.]
I do not think anything divides us from the Government on that.
What we would stress, now that we come to these amendments—and although we welcome some of the changes in Amendments Nos. 130 and 135, when we go a little further the harmony which has broken out will not, I fear, last—is that we think it right that this debate on these matters here tonight, because of the importance of the matter, should not be unnecessarily hasty.
The noble and learned Lord mentioned the Government's policy on this. I take it, as he said, that that has not changed and therefore what we are facing is a series of amendments dealing with clauses which, if I may use the words of the Minister in another place, again in Committee at col. 418, aims to abolish the external aspects of the ultra vires principle, as he put it, and,
"to provide greater protection for third parties, but to retain the possibility of internal control by shareholders".
I am not clutching at a mere phrase that the noble and learned Lord threw out, but I noticed that he spoke of "complete" protection for third parties. That is a slight difference of emphasis, and after these non-controversial changes—which we welcome—we come to the question whether the Government have that balance right. It is important because these clauses were not debated elsewhere. The Government gave notice of their intention in Committee, laid them on Report, whereupon they were passed on a guillotine timetable on 26th October. We can therefore welcome these particular amendments that the noble and learned Lord moves.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
131 Clause 95, page 93, leave out lines 29 to 36 and insert—
'(2) A member of a company may bring proceedings to restrain the doing of an act which but for subsection (1) would be beyond the company's capacity; but no such proceedings shall lie in respect of an act to be done in fulfilment of a legal obligation arising from a previous act of the company.
(3) It remains the duty of the directors to observe any limitations on their powers flowing from the company's memorandum; and action by the directors which but for subsection (1) would be beyond the company's capacity may only be ratified by the company by special resolution.
A resolution ratifying such action shall not affect any liability incurred by the directors or any other person; relief from any such liability must be agreed to separately by special resolution.
(4) The operation of this section is restricted by section 30B(1) of the Charities Act 1960 and section 99(3) of the Companies Act 1989 in relation to companies which are charities; and section 322A below (invalidity of certain transactions to which directors or their associates are parties) has effect notwithstanding this section.'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 131. This amendment concerns the provisions on the objects of a company and its legal capacity. The amendment has several effects. It

675
expressly enacts the right of a shareholder to bring proceedings to restrain the committing of an ultra vires act, instead of merely saving it as at present. Secondly, it expressly enacts that it remains the duty of the directors to observe any limitation on their capacity flowing from the company's memorandum.
At present the Bill is expressed as preserving any such liability of the directors. For the similar reason of not wishing to exonerate directors from liability, the amendment also makes clear that ratification by the company of an ultra vires act which would otherwise not bind the company on the grounds of lack of authority of the directors, does not affect any liability incurred by the directors or any other person.
It is provided that the company may by special resolution provide relief, but this must be agreed to separately from the ratification of the act itself. That is to prevent directors only putting forward one resolution on the agenda thereby giving the shareholders—if they want to ratify the act and take advantage of it—no option other than to absolve the persons concerned of their liability for any loss suffered. I recall that at an earlier stage the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, indicated, as he did concerning an earlier matter, that he would give this point a welcome also.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 131
131A Line 5, leave out ("a previous act of the Company") and insert ("an act of the Company done before the Company receives written notice from the member stating that there are grounds for such proceedings").
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 131A. We welcome the noble and learned Lord's introduction to Amendment No. 131 and the changes as regards the liability of directors in subsection (3) as it now is. However, I have heard many different views already from those who are in the field, as it were, of the meaning of the need to have relief for the directors agreed to separately by special resolution rather than by separate special resolution.
I do not pursue that matter because I believe it is a small point which may make for difficulty in practice. It is my task to move this amendment, which goes to a very important and difficult matter. I shall try to observe the advice that a noble Lord once gave me in this place. He said, "Please make your points quickly but speak more slowly".
It is not an easy matter. The Government intend to abolish the external effects of ultra vires but not its internal effects. The noble and learned Lord has repeated that the Government intend to give the shareholder a right to bring proceedings. From these Benches we have never quarrelled with the view that the ultra vires doctrine needed further legislative reform. We would have preferred more of the features of the Prentice Report which the Government have rejected.
676
We do not propose that the new section should do anything other than fully comply with our obligations under the Community's first directive on company law. We have doubts, which we have already put to the Government, that even these clauses comply as regards Article 2 (1) (d) of the directive. What we question here is whether the balance struck by the Government's new version is adequate or workable for the purposes of the internal aspect. The Minister, Mr. Maude, in Committee in the other place, as reported at col. 418 of Hansard, spoke of retaining the possibility of internal control by the shareholders.
Unless the right of action that is purported to be given to the shareholder in the new Section 35 is a reality, that balance is upset. We all know that these clauses will create on the statute book a situation where directors will have further power in addition to that which they have at the moment under the Companies Act. If a company is formed in Kent by shareholders who subscribe their funds solely for the purpose of opposing the bulldozing of their village for a proposed new railway line, and it so states in the memorandum, and if the directors dispose of the funds by contract or—I believe that the noble and learned Lord will agree—by gift in view of the definition of "act" in the clauses, or any other legally binding transaction, the third party takes good title.
It is true that the directors will remain liable for breach of duty. But they may be men of straw and unable to restore the company's funds. The issue therefore arises as to what chance a shareholder has of operating as an accountable control within the company concerning these matters, for there is no other control at this point. I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he can help us on the way to this very difficult balance by saying what the Government mean. They have spoken a number of times; for example, in Committee in another place, as reported at col. 415 of Hansard, and also at Committee stage in this House on 21st February —col. 512 of the Official Report. I quote from Mr. Maude speaking in the other place:
"We do not want to impair shareholders' ability to obtain damages from directors who breach their duties".
The duties of directors are owed to the company and not, in the normal case, to the shareholders. The shareholder will normally be able to operate only by way of a derivative action, suing on behalf of the company, if one likes to put it that way. But even in that instance there is a division. In the most recent English authority, Mr. Justice Knox, in the case of Smith v. Croft in 1987, distinguished the case of a shareholder suing derivatively to recover for loss suffered by the company after an ultra vires transaction and the case of a shareholder suing personally to prevent an ultra vires transaction.
Most people seem to read this clause as preserving only the second type of shareholder action, where proceedings are brought to restrain the doing of an ultra vires act. There is therefore a possible loss. Where the gain is not made by the directors or where they cannot in any way restore the loss by some third party, obviously the company loses out there. It is to the improvement of the possibility of the shareholder moving in as a piece of internal control, to use the

677
words Ministers have used themselves, that this amendment is directed. I hope that on this point the noble and learned Lord and I can be on common ground. We did not move in Committee to amend the new Section 35 because a subsection in new Section 35A gave the shareholder a much wider power to bring legal proceedings without the litigation that he could sue only, as it is now put, in respect of an act to be done in fulfilment of a legal obligation arising from a previous act of the company. What is now amended by Amendment No. 134 in the old Section 35A(2) gave him a much wider right. But now, both in respect of vires and in respect of directors' authority, the shareholder is limited to bringing proceedings in respect of an act to be done in fulfilment of a legal obligation arising from a previous act of the Company.
The question arises: an act "previous" to what? I have heard various arguments. Some have said that the clause might mean "an act previous to the obligation arising". Others have said, "an act previous to the commencement of the proceedings". The majority view seems to be "an act previous to the other act to be done"—an act creating a legal obligation before the act which the shareholder seeks to restrain. That seems to be the meaning of the clause. If it means that, as a matter of common sense, the shareholder will almost never have the chance to restrain the act to be done. The act which is done before it by the directors creates a legal obligation which, under Section 35A, is immediately binding in favour of the third party, provided he is acting in good faith. The shareholder cannot upset the transaction. There is nothing for him to restrain. He cannot restrain the execution of the executory contract because the company is bound to the contract under Section 35A. I take it that the noble and learned Lord agrees with that analysis.
When can the shareholder sue? Under the clause as it now stands, lacking the power that he used to have under the change to be made under Amendment No. 134 (we do not seek to upset that change in Amendment No. 134 because, having looked at it again, we think it is probably in accordance with the first directive to which I shall come in a moment) the shareholder can retain his right of action only where he gets to know of the act which creates the legal obligation. If on a Monday he believes that an impending transaction is arguably ultra vires—if a Kent shareholder gets wind of the coming transfer of the company's assets to the bulldozer company—by the time he has seen his solicitor (albeit that, under the reforms of the profession, solicitors are now more speedy than they used to be) and had him issue a writ on the Wednesday, the directors will, in the average case, have signed the contract on the Tuesday because the directors believe in what they are doing.
Our amendment is not a large one but it is important in practice. It proposes that the matter should not depend precisely on that legalism, if I may put it that way, but on whether the shareholder notifies the company formally that there are grounds for believing that the transaction is outwith the capacity of the company. In other words, it shifts
678
the boundary, the cut-off point, between the external and the internal slightly in favour of the shareholder.
I should make one last point because I must pre-empt the question of whether our amendment is not only better—and we think it is—but that it is also within the terms of the first directive. Here of course we must look to the first directive of the Community all the time. I say to the noble and learned Lord quite straightforwardly that I hope he will not just tell us that our amendment is outwith the directive—if he thinks that it is—without putting forward careful grounds. We believe that the grounds for including our amendment within the directive are as good as those in respect of the Government's new subsection (2) as set out in Amendment No. 131.
The first directive requires the company to be bound to third parties by,
"acts done by the organs of the company",
even though those acts may be outside the company's objects. However, it is subject to a proviso. In fact it is subject to two provisos, but the Government have always refused to use the second one which is that the third party is not bound if he has knowledge, providing certain formalities are observed, of the ultra vires transaction. Many member states have such a proviso in their commercial law. But the Government will not use it. Nevertheless, they cannot escape the other proviso which reads as follows:
"unless such acts exceed the powers that the law confers or allows to be conferred on those organs".
Those words are contained in Article 9, paragraph 1, which is about ultra vires. Paragraph 2 of Article 9—about which there has been some confusion during previous debates—is not about ultra vires; it is about authority, and we cannot use that proviso in this case. That is why we do not oppose Commons Amendment No. 134.
We are not concerned here with the powers of directors—that is, the organs—we are concerned with the ultra vires transaction. We say that that proviso is well wide enough to allow for our amendment. The amendment ensures that the law shall not confer on the board of directors—as the corporate organ—the power to dispose of the company's assets beyond the stated purpose of the enterprise, after it has received formal notice from the shareholder that there are grounds for saying that it is outside the purposes for which they invested their money. That seems to us to be a reasonable proposition. It is one which is contained in the first directive. Perhaps I may, yet again, quote the Minister who said in another place: Of course it will remain possible for restrictions to be placed on a company by its shareholders. We believe that the ambition is better achieved by our amendment than it is by what has arisen—and we recognise this fact—from a very complex and difficult set of deliberations on the matter by the Government. However, at this last stage of the proceedings we would urge them to consider our amendment favourably.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 131—that is, without the refinements just

679
referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. The CBI advises me quite simply that this amendment will codify the common law position whereby a minority shareholder may take proceedings to restrain the doing of an ultra vires act. I am assured that it is really quite simple and straightforward and not perhaps as elaborate as has been portrayed to us.
The CBI also advised me that it believes the wording,
"powers flowing from the company's memorandum",
contained in subsection (3) of the amendment to Clause 95 could more accurately be expressed by the words,
"the powers flowing from a company's articles".
It was not thought necessary to put this forward as an amendment but it is worthy of the Government's consideration. Perhaps there may be time for them to make such a correction if it proves to be necessary.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I shall respond as briefly as I can to what has been said. If I understood the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, correctly, he appeared to be suggesting that the provisions now provided are essentially exhaustive of the remedies available to a shareholder derivatively or otherwise. It is essentially a provision with a more restricted purpose. In order to protect that third party, acting in good faith, subsection (2) clearly illustrates the restrictions on his ability to bring proceedings to restrain the doing of an act. It is not intended to cover any other remedies that there might be.
As the noble Lord will appreciate, it is all being done in the context of establishing a balance between what is done internally in the company and how it affects those who are outwith it and operate with it in good faith.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, originally we were dealing with what were essentially the objects of the company, but, as I sought to indicate in relation to the earlier amendment, what was said to us—it may at least in part be what is being said by the CBI—was that we should not deal just with the matter in relation to the articles or the objects, but ensure that any provision in the memorandum is covered rather than restricted in any way. That essentially reflects the present position under the Companies Act.
I turn now to Amendment No. 131A. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said about the first EC directive and, in particular, Article 9 thereof. It is the Government's view that if the noble Lord's amendment were to be introduced it would put us in breach of our international obligation, because the article provides that the acts of a company are to be binding on it, even if they are not within the objects, subject to the member state's option to provide that knowledge of the objects by the third party renders void a transaction with him which is beyond the objects. By allowing ultra vires acts to be set aside where a member of a company has given certain written advice to the company, without even introducing an element of knowledge on the part of the third party, it would
680
appear to the Government that the amendment would be contrary to the article of that first directive.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I apologise for interrupting him, but I want to make clear the ground between us on the issue of the first directive. He read the opening words, but I shall read the whole of the first sentence. Article 9 paragraph 1 reads:
"Acts done by the organs of the company shall be binding upon it, even if those acts are not within the objects of the company, unless such acts exceed the powers that the law confers or allows to be conferred on those organs".
The article continues with the point about knowledge, which is not between us, and which the Government do not wish to use. It is an option that they reject. However, it is clear that there is a proviso, which needs no exercise of any option, before we come to the second proviso. It is that upon which we rely, as do some other member states.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, despite what the noble Lord has just said, he seems to agree with me that an ultra vires act can be set aside where the third party has no knowledge of it. The amendment would be contrary to the article of the first directive. That, I understand, the noble Lord agrees. If it is flawed in that respect, he must necessarily concede that his whole amendment must fail.
In any event, the amendment that he proposes would extend the circumstances in which a member of a company may bring proceedings to restrain the doing of an act which would be beyond the company's capacity. As I understand it, under the noble Lord's amendment, rather than no right to bring proceedings being effective where an act is in fulfilment of a legal obligation arising from a previous act of the company, no proceedings are to lie where the legal obligation arises from an act of the company done before the company receives written advice from the member stating that there are grounds for such proceedings.
I should like to suggest that this amendment would reintroduce an unnecessary degree of uncertainty on the part of third parties. Let us take a specific example of a company which, without having the legal capacity under its memorandum, has entered into a contract to purchase land but the conveyance has not yet been completed. Under the amendment the other party to the contract could not be certain of its being honoured, for a member of the company may have advised the company before it entered into the contract that there were grounds for restraining the doing of the act. The other party may be entirely unaware that the act was beyond the company's capacity and may have no idea that a member has advised the company of that effect. Yet under the amendment he could not enforce the contract and could face considerable losses in the course of its unravelling.
This is all the more objectionable because the Government Amendment No. 131 allows a member to take effective action in the circumstances with which we are concerned. The noble Lord's amendment concerns the case, and only the case, where a member is aware that a proposed act is

681
beyond the member's capacity and wishes to prevent it. With respect, it seems to me that there is more than one ground for taking exception to this amendment. I hope that the noble Lord now understands the Government's position.
10 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I must not pursue this argument because I shall have to withdraw the amendment. I understand the Government's position. I had not realised that it was as wrong as I now think it is. While we are discussing the directive, I must say that the noble and learned Lord has not engaged with me upon it. It is not a question of the third party's knowledge. Of course the case that I am out for is where the third party may lose out. But that is the whole point: that there may be some cases where a third party loses out and where a shareholder stops the ultra vires transaction.
What is wrong with the Government's new formula is that there will almost never—I shall not say never—be a case where the proposed right of the shareholder to sue can be operated. There will always have been an act which creates some legal obligation under Section 35A. The shareholder will never have an action, except possibly in the case of a gift. There, there is no previous act to the act which creates the obligation, and no subsequent act. It is all one and the clause does not seem to cover it. However, that is a strange point about the drafting. Other than that, the shareholders lose out completely.
The directive allows us to give, and member states have given, to the organs of the company a restricted power under the proviso of Article 9(1). Every time we have legislation on the matter, what is put forward, with great respect, appears to misunderstand the first directive. This is well known in Brussels to be one of the Achilles' heels of the British. There are not many of them—most are largely unassailable—but this is one of them.
The Government are making a great mistake here. After this comes into operation—I am surprised at the constituency which the Government will be offending—what will be seen is that there is no balance between internal and external, except in regard to directors' liabilities. I must of course add that; and I agree that directors' liabilities remain. But apart from that, the shareholder will in effect have no right of action at all. However, the Government insist on enacting that. Therefore I must beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 131A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 131, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 131 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
132 Page 94, line 4, at end insert—
'(c) a person shall be presumed to have acted in good faith unless the contrary is proved.'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 132, and coupled with that, Amendment No. 134. The government amendments resolve certain questions which have arisen on the
682
drafting of the new Section 35A. That section protects a person dealing with a company in good faith from limitations under the company's constitution on the power of the board of directors to bind the company or to authorise others to do so.
Amendment No. 132 provides for it to be presumed that a person is to be regarded as acting in good faith unless the contrary is proved. Such a presumption was inserted in the existing Section 35 of the Companies Act. If, as we wish, we are to protect persons dealing with a company, we think the onus should be on the person seeking to challenge the validity of an act to show that the other party was acting in bad faith.
Amendment No. 134 brings new Section 35A into line with the parallel provision in new Section 35 by providing that proceedings cannot be brought to restrain the doing of an act which is beyond the powers of the directors if the act is in fulfilment of a legal obligation arising from a previous act of the company. An example of such an act, as I have already indicated, might be one where a conveyance is carried out in fulfilment of an agreement to sell land.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord a question. We have no great objection to Amendment No. 132, unless it be that the last few words are surplus. The words,
"shall be presumed to have acted in good faith",
seem enough. However, the paragraph which does not appear on the Marshalled List but which will remain in the Bill states:
"(b) a person shall not be regarded as acting in bad faith by reason only of his knowing that an act is beyond the powers of the directors under the company's constitution".
The third party receives a double bonus. Once again all the presumptions are for the third party. He has the presumption of good faith, and even if he knows that the directors are acting contrary to their authority he is not thereby regarded as being in bad faith. On the new structure of the clause, will the noble and learned Lord give us art example of a third party who was in bad faith given that he is presumed to be in good faith and his knowledge of the lack of authority is not bad faith itself, other than someone who is merely out maliciously to injure the enterprise? The latter is not a very interesting situation. However, in an ordinary commercial situation, can the noble and learned Lord give me an example of bad faith?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, my Lords. I do not think I can give the noble Lord an answer to that. I think it is quite clear that there will be a large number of circumstances where there is bad faith. What is more important to determine are those circumstances in which a person is acting in good faith. I had anticipated that the noble Lord would be concerned about the fact that just because someone knows something it is not automatically to be assumed that he is acting in bad faith. An example

683
of that is where a person has been given some assurance that a necessary authorisation will be obtained, but it has not yet arrived, and ultimately it is not forthcoming.
Similarly, there may be circumstances where a large organisation is involved, although the term "a person" is used. One branch of that organisation may be presumed to have knowledge of the powers because it has a copy of the memorandum of the company, whereas it is another branch of the same organisation which is contracting. It would seem to me that rather than try to range extensively over what may amount to bad faith, it is more important to establish the limitations of good faith.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he answer the question that my noble friend put to him on why the last few words in Amendment No. 132 are necessary?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should say that the provision states:
"a person shall be presumed to have acted in good faith unless the contrary is proved".
I see what the noble Lord is driving at, but I should think in any circumstances it cannot be said that that creates any difficulty. It certainly does not cause any obscurity. However, I think that is a matter for the draftsmen. I cannot believe that the noble Lord is in any sense confused by what is provided.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
133 Page 94, leave out lines 5 to 9 and insert—
'(2A) The references to limitations on the directors' powers under the company's constitution include limitations deriving—

(a) from a resolution of the company in general meeting or a meeting of any class of shareholders, or

(b) from any agreement between the members of the company or of any class of shareholders.'.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 133. Amendment No. 133 adds some clarification to the meaning of limitations on the directors' powers under the company's constitution. It makes clear that the limitations include any deriving from a resolution of a class of shareholders. It has been pointed out to us that the articles of association may confer special rights in favour of the members of a class of shareholders, and we thought it right to make clear that a person would be protected from limitations imposed by a resolution of such a class.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
10.15 p.m.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 133.
133A At end insert ("but do not include limitations concerning the quorum of the board of directors").
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 133A. In many ways, we regard our amendment as raising the most important matter in this whole part. Our amendment is possible because there is the new subsection going some way to define, or indicate, what is meant by limitations on the directors' powers. We believe there is a central point which has caused uncertainty since the legislation of 1972, which this is an opportunity to put right. It is a nettle which no government previously have been prepared to grasp.
The main objective of the directive, on which the Government have centred very strongly, was to remove uncertainty from commercial transactions. We are now into the area not of ultra vires, but of the excess of authority by the directors or organs of a company. A special problem arose for Britain and Ireland in this respect, and it is necessary to indicate what it was because it is such an important matter.
The directive speaks in terms—I quote Article 9—of,
"the powers of the organs of the company".
That language is quite specific. It is language known to many systems of company law in member states; certainly to all those which were member states in 1972. But it was not known to British or Irish company law. Those systems know of agents, at any rate in commercial transactions.
In some delictual situations, in torts and crimes, British company law knows of the directors as the alter ego of the company, but not in commercial transactions. There they are agents, and they are still agents and the concept of an organ is materially different from the concept of an agent. The organ operates for and as the organisation, without primary reference to authority and excess of authority, and the directive is drafted in terms of the organic concept of the company.
What the Republic of Ireland did in 1973 was to pass legislation which stated that the acts of the organs of the company should bind the company to third parties acting in good faith, and it defined the organs of the company as the board of directors and other persons registered under its regulations. We have always refused to have regulations under the first directive—and I have adverted to that matter previously—so we have no register on which to put the names of the other organs of the company as the Irish legislation envisages.
But what we have done since 1972 is to limp along pretending that you can treat agents in terms of organs of the company in the directive. Now we are doing it again, because the final version which comes to us now still speaks of the organs of the company being the board of directors.
In Committee, in your Lordships' recommitment of this matter to a Committee, we failed to convince the Government that they should take out those aspects of the new Section 35A that allow for the board of directors to act along with anyone ostensibly, impliedly or expressly authorised by it. But with this more limited amendment, we can also grasp a more central nettle.
The sheet anchor of the scheme is the board of directors; and the board of directors in our law,

685
acting in excess of authority under the constitution, is a body which is not otherwise regulated at all. Unlike the company law in most member states, there is no definition in our legislation of the board of directors. Of course, most articles of association contain provision for meetings of the directors. But they are all limitations which must be ignored in deciding whether the company is bound to the third party acting in good faith. It is proposed that we merely enact that the power of the board of directors to bind the company should be free of any limitation. Our limitations are spelt out in the amendment.
However, as the Bill stands, it will be highly arguable—those with whom I have discussed the matter regard it as obvious—that all the limitations must be ignored. That includes the quorum of the board itself. Let us assume that there is a board with three members, two of whom favour one policy while the third favours another policy. A formal, proper board is called, but the first two members are injured on the way to it and the third member then executes a contract for the company—in the company's name on behalf of the company, acting as the board, when the quorum is two. How will it be possible to establish that the company is not bound? One must not look at the limitations in the articles. One must not look—I understand this point in the new subsection—at the limitations in any agreement between the members of the company or any class, as the noble and learned Lord explained.
We have the Government's word for it that that astonishing result is not what they intend. In Committee in another place Mr. Maude, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, was taxed on this very matter. When he was asked what was meant by a decision of the board of directors, he said:
"It means a decision by a quorate meeting of directors, and what a quorate meeting is will depend on the constitution of the company… the decision… by the directors… refers to a quorate meeting of the board of directors". —[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee; 20/6/89, col. 419.]
That makes a great deal of sense. It is very sensible, but it is not what the Bill states. When I read what had been said in Committee in another place I was sure that, when we came to the Report stage with the amendments which were tabled and were never debated, I would find a provision just like our amendment but better drafted.
The Government should surely do that now and realise that there is no problem with this amendment about the first directive. I am sure that we agree on that. It is for the domestic law to define the organ of the company. We would define the primary organ of the company as a quorate meeting of the board of directors. That would seem to be common sense. But, if the Bill goes through in this form, any meeting—or at any rate any meeting called by those purporting in some way to be the board of directors—may act for the company irrespective of any limitations. That includes its quorum and a number of other matters. It may be arguable that the board of directors should be defined with rather more exactitude, with the proper notice and a proper quorum, but we have simply concentrated on the one simple core point; namely, that surely the board
686
of directors must have a quorum and, therefore, that the notion of quorum must be taken out of the notion of limitation.
There is no problem with the directive. Surely it is something with which we can deal. It would not take a great deal of legislative time. It need only go down the Corridor. I hope that this deliberation on the modest uncertainty which is left in the Bill will be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 133A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 133, be agreed to.—(Lord Wedderburn of Charlton.)
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord has built an elaborate edifice on what is a very small amendment. I do not entirely follow the reasoning behind it.
New Section 35A(1) provides that, in favour of a person dealing with a company in good faith, the power of the board of directors to bind the company or authorise others to do so is to be deemed to be free of any limitations under the company's constitution. Subsection (2), with which we are concerned here, is concerned with specifying certain limitations on the power of the board of directors to which subsection (1) is to extend. The rules as to how many directors are needed to form a quorate board are not limitations on the power of the board of directors. They deal with the logically prior question of what constitutes a board of directors. Subsection (1) has nothing to say in that respect. It was no slip by the Minister in another place. It is concerned with the limitations on the powers of a quorate board. As drafted, the noble Lord's amendment would lead to some confusion as to when an honest third party was protected, but, on a better view, it has little or no effect.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, this matter becomes more and more serious. I am sorry that it has arisen now. We have already said—and I thought that the noble and learned Lord agreed—that this is the last time that Parliament will speak on the matter. It is also the first time that we speak on it except for what was said by the Minister in the other place as to the Government's intentions. He did not say what the noble and learned Lord said. He did not say that the quorum was not a limitation.
Let us take that proposition. Where does one find limitations? They are in the articles. The quorum provision is in the articles. Where does one find the other limitations on authority? They are in the articles. Why are they in the articles? The answer is because they are all part of the contract. Where does one find the requirement for notice of the board meeting? It is in the articles. Where does one find all the other procedures, if there are any, concerning the directors, shareholders and board meetings? They are in the articles. The articles contain all those limitations.
With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord I predict that a court will not take the noble and learned Lord's view unless it is an extremely novel interpretation. Of course we have novel

687
statutory interpretation these days but in this instance it would have to be very novel.
I want to ask him some questions and I hope the noble and learned Lord will have the leave of the House to answer. A quorum is not limitation. Is, then, proper notice for the board meeting a limitation? Is the place where the board meeting must be held a limitation? Are any of the other requirements relating to the procedures of the board limitations? If they are not, when does a limitation start? There is of course excess of authority. If the board meets in the wrong place, presumably that is an excess of authority. I do not understand the division. The noble and learned Lord is doing what our law should do and I have the greatest respect for his agility in doing it. What he called this "elaborate edifice" which was in fact the shortened version of the case has pushed him to create an organ. He has created the organ of the company: the quorum board of directors.
I hope that he will intervene. I want to know the Government's view. I have given him a few moments' notice of the question. Are the proper notice for the board meeting, the proper place for the board meeting and other proper requirements for the board meeting proper requirements for limitations, or are they not? I shall willingly give way to him. I see that he does not wish to say anything. It is an astonishing thing to do to company law. We get to this point and we do not know whether or not the notice of the board meeting is a limitation.
What are we saying? What will my noble friend Lord Williams carry back to his banks in the City? Seriously, what will he say to them? They will say to him, "We understand that being a quorum is very important. But what about our articles which say that we have a meeting in Lloyds Bank's central headquarters—or whatever bank it is? Is that important?" He will say, "We do not know. They would not tell us". Yet they have had since November 1988. We have all had since 1972. Let us be serious. The noble and learned Lord knows perfectly well that we have had terrible difficulty with this area of the law. We have evaded doing what is necessary. The Government are edging up to it. Why cannot they accept a statement in our amendment which is apparently what is intended, namely that quorum is not a limitation?
The noble and learned Lord said so himself, and that is what our amendment says. So why cannot he accept it? If he does not wish to intervene we shall have to press the amendment. We must say something to the outside world to show that we are serious about this matter, and we are very serious indeed.
10.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 133A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 133, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 7; Not-Contents, 39.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Hacking, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Kimball, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Borthwick, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Caithness, E.

Morris, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mountevans, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Dundee, E.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Southborough, L.

Gisborough, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harlech, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

Harvington, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Torrington, V.

Hives, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wynford, L.

Joseph, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment No. 133A disagreed to accordingly.
10.32 p.m.
On Question, Amendment No. 133 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
134 Clause 95, line 12, leave out from 'directors' to end of line 14 and insert 'but no such proceedings shall lie in respect of an act to be done in fulfilment of a legal obligation arising from a previous act of the company.
(3A) Nor does that subsection affect any liability incurred by the directors, or any other person, by reason of the directors' exceeding their powers.'.
135 Page 94, leave out lines 15 to 24.
136 Page 94, line 24, at end insert—
'(4) The operation of this section is restricted by section 30B(1) of the Charities Act 1960 and section 99(3) of the Companies Act 1989 in relation to companies which are charities; and section 322A below (invalidity of certain transactions to which directors or their associates are parties) has effect notwithstanding this section.'.
137 Page 94, line 26, leave out from 'is' to 'or' in line 27 and insert 'permitted by the company's memorandum'.
138 Page 94, line 29, at end insert—
'(1A) In Schedule 21 to the Companies Act 1985 (effect of registration of companies not formed under that Act), after sub-paragraph 6 (general application of provisions of Act), after sub-paragraph (5) insert—
"(6) Where by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) or (5) a company does not have power to alter a provision, it does not have power to ratify acts of the directors in contravention of the provision.".'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 134 to 138.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
139 Clause 96, page 94, leave out from beginning of line 35 to end of line 12 on page 95 and insert—
'322A.—(1) This section applies where a company enters into a transaction to which the parties include—

(a) a director of the company or of its holding company, or

(b) a person connected with such director or a company with whom such a director is associated,

and the board of directors, in connection with the transaction, exceed any limitation on their powers under the company's constitution.
(2) The transaction is voidable at the instance of the company.
(3) Whether or not it is avoided, any such party to the transaction as is mentioned in subsection 1(a) or (b), and any director of the company who authorised the transaction, is liable—

(a) to account to the company for any gain which he has made directly or indirectly by the transaction, and

(b) to indemnify the company for any loss or damage resulting from the transaction.

(4) Nothing in the above provisions shall be construed as excluding the operation of any other enactment or rule of law by virtue of which the transaction may be called in question or any liability to the company may arise.
(5) The transaction ceases to be voidable if—

(a) restitution of any money or other asset which was the subject-matter of the transaction is no longer possible, or

(b) the company is indemnified for any loss or damage resulting from the transaction, or

(c) rights acquired bona fide for value and without actual notice of the directors' exceeding their powers by a person who is not party to the transaction would be affected by the avoidance, or

(d) the transaction is ratified by the company in general meeting, by ordinary or special resolution or otherwise as the case may require.

(6) A person other than a director of the company is not liable under subsection (3) if he shows that at the time the transaction was entered into he did not know that the directors were exceeding their powers.
(7) This section does not affect the operation of section 35A in relation to any party to the transaction not within subsection (1)(a) or (b).
But where a transaction is voidable by virtue of this section and valid by virtue of that section in favour of such a person, the court may, on the application of that person or of the company, make such order affirming, severing or setting aside the transaction, on such terms, as appear to the court to be just.
(8) In this section "transaction" includes any act; and the reference in subsection (I) to limitations under the company's constitution includes limitations deriving—

(a) from a resolution of the company in general meeting or a meeting of any class of shareholders, or

(b) from any agreement between the members of the company or of any class of shareholders.".'.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 139. It reworks the provisions in the Bill on transactions with directors or connected persons where the board has exceeded any limitation on their powers under the company's constitution.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, again I put it to the Government that this is the first time that many of these matters have been debated.
690
Although the noble and learned Lord said that it is a reworked section—and that is true—it is an important matter. For example, it is not clear why the section is now formulated in terms of its being voidable at the instance of the company instead of void unless ratified. No explanation is given anywhere else so the point must be put. It may mean that the benefit of corporate inertia went to a deliquent director. I choose the most important points.
Secondly, where the parties to the transaction are a director and persons connected with a director, is it correct to say that the new section still permits the connected person and the director, if they are shareholders, to cast their votes at a general meeting on a resolution not to rescind the transaction to themselves? The Government have a model in the Companies Act, as in Section 174, and in two other areas where votes are not allowed by some shareholders who are interested.
Thirdly, does the section apply to shadow directors? It may be that I have missed the answer because the measure is complicated. However, I looked through the schedules and I could not find a provision applying the new Section 322A to shadow directors. That would be very odd since most of Part X of the 1985 Act does apply to shadow directors. If I am wrong on that, I should like the reassurance of the noble and learned Lord.
Again, where the directors decide to do anything—that is, where there is a transaction between the board of directors exceeding its authority and another director or connected person —to enforce the rights of indemnity for the company and that is accountability for gains to the company is it envisaged that the shareholder has the right to bring derivative proceedings? The Government never face up to those derivative actions. However, that is an important matter because a company may then only have as a refuge a shareholder of a derivative action. It would be more reassuring, if he has that right, for the right to be put into the section.
Is it really fair to the company what the intervention of a bona fide third party for value without actual notice always totally bars the right to avoid the transaction? I appreciate that this is a point to which the Government have given great thought. However, one wonders whether it would not have been right to give the court the power in that case, as it has in other cases under subsection (7), to determine the justice of the case. It has the power to make terms under subsection (7) protecting the interest of the third party but also severing the transaction if it thinks just. One wonders why that provision is not applied at all when the hypothesis is that the transaction against the company is so wrong on the part of the board of directors exceeding their authority and the other director. Those are some questions which arise and which I put to the noble and learned Lord for the record.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord replies, in addition to what my noble friend Lord Wedderburn said, I slightly missed what the noble and learned Lord said in his opening

691
remarks. I heard his remark that "this amendment reworks" but missed what he then said. Did he say that it reworks the clause in the Bill as it left this House? If that is what he said, does "reworks" mean that this says the same thing but with improved wording? Or does it say something additional of a substantive nature? I do not believe we can let this go through without clarifying what is reworked and in what way it is reworked. I should like an answer that a layman—namely, not a lawyer—can understand.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, perhaps I can respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. He says that this has not been considered elsewhere. In fact, we are at a stage when amendments have indeed been considered elsewhere. That is the very purpose of this part of the proceedings.
The Government's principal concern in putting forward this amendment has been to protect the position of innocent persons who have acquired an interest in an asset from a person who has himself acquired it in contravention of the new Section 322A. In doing so we are also safeguarding the position of the Land Registry and the registers in Scotland which indemnify the purchase of land for any defect in the title and where there is no way of ascertaining with complete accuracy whether a transaction has been rendered void by the new Section 322A. Rather than making the transactions covered by the new section void from inception unless ratified by the company, the transactions are to be voidable at the instance of the company.
I respond to the query of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, regarding the word "reworking" and whether that means merely putting the essential idea into different words. It is not. It moved from a concept of being void to voidable.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may say this. I am sure he would not wish any formal point to be between us. What I said was—and I hope that he will accept it from me—that this new clause, which is now an amendment before us, had not been debated elsewhere. The intentions of the Government were expressed in Committee but the matter was not debated. It was put to the House of Commons on Report under a guillotine Motion and it was not debated at all.
If I am wrong, I shall apologise profusely to the noble and learned Lord. However, I believe I am right, as I look very carefully at the debates in another place. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept from me that that is so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
140 Clause 97, page 95, line 19, leave out from 'formation),' to 'A' in line 29 and insert `after section 3 (forms of memorandum) insert—
("Statement of company's objects: general commercial company
3A. Where the company's memorandum states that the object of the company is to carry on business as a general commercial company—

692

(a) the object of the company is to carry on any trade or business whatsoever, and

(b) the company has power to do all such things as are incidental or conducive to the carrying on of any trade or business by it.".

(2) In the same Chapter, for section 4 (resolution to alter objects) substitute—
Resolution to alter objects.
4.—(a)'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 140.
The effect of the amendment is to delete the provision in the current Bill that the objects of a company may be stated in any manner. That provision in fact does no more than set out the present position at common law; that is to say that the draftsman of a company's objects clause is not constrained by the content—as opposed to the form—of the model memoranda laid down by the Secretary of State under the Act. The content will depend on what objects the company's founders wish to pursue. However, the provision was being misunderstood in some quarters. Given this misunderstanding and since, as I say, this provision was doing no more than setting out the position at common law, we have thought it best to delete the provision and rely on the common law.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I ask the noble and learned Lord one question on the new amendment as it stands. That concerns not the dropping of the words that he spoke to but the ability of the company to adopt the status of a general commercial company. There is some confusion about the Government's intention on one small point which could be important. If the company adopts what one might call the general commercial clause as its objects, can it do so with exceptions? Can it do so with provisos or must it take the offer 100 per cent.? I have no particular view as to which is better, but there is a question-mark against this. It looks as though the company has to take it 100 per cent.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, at the heart of an operation of a limited liability company lies a balance between directors and shareholders—a matter which frequently vexes the noble Lord. In my view, giving a general commercial company power to do anything at all, even if it were subject to whatever express limitations were in the memorandum, would shift the balance too far away from the shareholders and place them too much at risk. The provision as it is would enable shareholders to give their company a wide-ranging power to carry on any trade or business, but if still wider powers are required it will be open to them to set them out in the memorandum. The onus should not be on the shareholders to set out limitations on an absolute power. I hope that answers the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
141 Clause 98, page 96, leave out lines 20 to 44 and insert—
'30B.—(1) Sections 35 and 35A of the Companies Act 1985 (capacity of a company not limited by its memorandum; power of directors to bind company) do not apply to the acts of a company which is a charity except in favour of a person who—

(a) gives full consideration in money or money's worth in relation to the act in question, and

(b) does not know that the act is not permitted by the company's memorandum or, as the case may be, is beyond the powers of the directors,

or who does not know at the time the act is done that the company is a charity.
(2) However, where such a company purports to transfer or grant an interest in property, the fact that the act was not permitted by the company's memorandum or, as the case may be, that the directors in connection with the act exceeded any limitation on their powers under the company's constitution, does not affect the title of a person who subsequently acquires the property or any interest in it for full consideration without actual notice of any such circumstances affecting the validity of the company's act.
(3) In any proceedings arising out of subsection (1) the burden of proving—

(a) that a person knew that an act was not permitted by the company's memorandum or was beyond the powers of the directors, or

(b) that a person knew that the company was a charity, lies on the person making that allegation.

(4) Where a company is a charity, the ratification of an act under section 35(3) of the Companies Act 1985, or the ratification of a transaction to which section 322A of that Act applies (invalidity of certain transactions to which directors or their associates are parties), is ineffective without the prior written consent of the Commissioners.'.
142 Page 97, line 5, after 'company,' insert—
'(cc) in all conveyances purporting to be executed by the company,'.
143 Page 97, line 7, at end insert—
'(1A) In subsection (1)(cc) "conveyance" means any instrument creating, transferring, varying or extinguishing an interest in land.'.
144 Clause 99, page 97, line 35, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—
'(3) Sections 35 and 35A of the Companies Act 1985 (capacity of a company not limited by its memorandum; power of directors to bind company) do not apply to the acts of a company which is a charity except in favour of a person who—

(a) gives full consideration in money or money's worth in relation to the act in question, and

(b) does not know that the act is not permitted by the company's memorandum or, as the case may be, is beyond the powers of the directors,

or who does not know at the time the act is done that the company is a charity.
(4) However, where such a company purports to transfer or grant an interest in property, the fact that the act was not permitted by the company's memorandum or, as the case may be, that the directors in connection with the act exceeded any limitation on their powers under the company's constitution, does not affect the title of a person who subsequently acquires the property or any interest in it for full consideration without actual notice of any such circumstances affecting the validity of the company's act.
(5) In any proceedings arising out of subsection (3) the burden of proving—

(a) that a person knew that an act was not permitted by the company's memorandum or was beyond the powers of the directors, or

(b) that a person knew that the company was a charity, lies on the person making that allegation.'.

145 Page 98, line 14, after 'company,' insert—
`(cc) in all conveyances purporting to be executed by the company,'.
146 Page 98, line 15, at end insert—
'(6A) In subsection (6)(cc) "conveyance" means any document for the creation, transfer, variation or extinction of an interest in land.'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 141 to 146. Amendments Nos. 141 and 144 are as corrected. These amendments concern the special rules relating to charitable companies.
Like the previous group, Amendment Nos. 141 and 144 also have as their origin a desire to protect innocent third parties who might be affected by a transaction being void. Where a person dealing with a charitable company is protected under new Section 30B(1) or Clause 99(3), there is no difficulty for subsequent purchasers. The difficulty arises where the person dealing with the company is not protected—in which case he does not have a good title to pass on to subsequent purchasers. Amendments Nos. 141 and 144 therefore provide that in that case the title of a person who subsequently acquires the property or any interest in it is to be protected if he has given full consideration and had not had actual notice of any circumstance affecting the validity of the company's act. The burden of proving that he had such notice is to rest on the person alleging it in any proceedings.
Noble Lords may recall that I mentioned, in discussing the previous group of amendments, the liability which would arise for the Land Registry and the registers of Scotland if transactions affecting land were voided. Although, as I have said, the position of persons who subsequently acquire an interest in property is to be protected, under the amendments transactions with a charitable company which were ultra vires or otherwise outwith the authority of the directors will still be void unless the person concerned does not fall within the circumstances set out in new Section 30B(1) or Clause 99(3), as the case may be. In order to protect their own position, the land registries will be requiring charities to warrant that transactions are intra vires. To assist them in identifying charitable companies, the amendments add conveyances to the list of documents on which a charitable company which does not include the words "charity" or "charitable" in its name must disclose its charitable status.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
147 Clause 100, page 99, line 13, leave out from beginning to 'which' in line 14 and insert '(6) A resolution may be agreed to in accordance with this section'.
148 Page 99, leave out lines 19 to 28.
149 Page 99, line 29, leave out 'Section 381A' and insert 'This section'.
150 Page 99, line 31, leave out 'that' and insert 'this'.
151 Page 100, line 12, at end insert—
'Written resolutions: supplementary provisions.
381D.—(1) Sections 381A and 381C have effect notwithstanding any provision of the company's memorandum or articles.
(2) Nothing in those sections affects any enactment or rule of law as to—

(a) things done otherwise than by passing a resolution, or

(b) cases in which a resolution is treated as having been passed, or a person is precluded from alleging that a resolution has not been duly passed.'.

10.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 147 to 151 inclusive. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure beyond doubt that the provisions in the Bill setting out a formal process for substituting unanimous written resolutions for resolutions at meetings do not cast doubt on informal procedures which the courts have previously recognised.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I believe that there is something to be said about this; namely, to ask the Government for their opinions about this clause as it goes on to the statute book. This is the last time we shall see it. Rather without precedence in a Companies Bill, it is part of what is called the deregulation provisions of the private company that allows it to operate without the normal company law procedures by signed resolutions.
I direct the Minister's attention to Amendment No. 151, a matter already in the Bill but not put as well or as prominently. An informal unanimous agreement is one measure that the courts have already accepted over a very wide area. In 1980 the High Court in the English jurisdiction accepted that a 100 per cent. agreement informally among shareholders was sufficient to change the articles even without a special resolution.
There has been some doubt as to the extent of that doctrine. The new prominence of Section 381D (2) in Amendment No. 151 will give greater credence—I have no objection to this—to the idea that resolutions are treated as having been passed by unanimous agreement informally. That is what is obviously referred to. If that is right it appears to apply to anything that falls within the Government's new Section 381C. In fact, it might apply to anything within their rather long Schedule 15A. It appears to apply to a very number of matters put into about eight pages of the Bill.
If that is right then a great deal of parliamentary time, and even some government money—Ministers will have to be careful on this—has been wasted because perhaps all that the Government want done could have been achieved by a unanimous, 100 per cent. informal assent by the shareholders even without the written resolution on which the Government and my noble friend Lord Williams and I at one time exchanged different views.
This delphic Section 381D may well contain the nub of the thought that perhaps all this could have been done in private companies without these long and laborious sessions of Parliament. Is that perhaps the effect of the government prominence now for
696
Section 381D (2)? I suspect it may be, and it may be a very good way of ending the evening by realising that some of these matters are not necessary.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord puts the question to the House, as we are considering the last group of amendments perhaps I may say that having listened very carefully to much of the argument I believe that the House has been placed in a most unsatisfactory position in considering the amendments.
It has been put in this position not because the Government have not yet tuned into their new role as a listening government. They certainly have not listened to the arguments presented by noble Lords on the Opposition Front Benches. They have not listened to the arguments presented by the Law Society or the Institute of Arbitrators. A large number of amendments has been taken without proper debate and without proper consideration in another place.
We are in an unsatisfactory position, not because the Government are not in tune with their new listening posture but because they are not in control at this stage of their own legislation. This has produced a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. We should be dealing with these amendments as if we were in Committee. The Government should have given themselves an opportunity to consider the points raised by noble Lords and to deal with them in an orderly fashion. They could have done so if these amendments had been considered properly in Committee in another place and properly in Committee in this Chamber, and not with the straps of the legislative programme, with the Government being quite unable to manoeuvre.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am amazed by the noble Lord's words. First, those are the kind of comments which he could easily have made when we opened the proceedings this afternoon. They could have been made far better there than at this stage of the evening. Secondly, to say that the Government have not listened is simply to ignore all the amendments before the House. It is purely because there has been so much consultation and so much acceptance of arguments from noble Lords on both sides of the House and from Members in another place that we are bringing back so many amendments. It is no good saying that we have not been listening. Part of the problem is that we have been listening too much and therefore we have made some changes.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, made a mountain out of a molehill on this amendment. The point of the provisions is to have a statutory procedure which less sophisticated directors can follow instead of relying on common law. Therefore all we are doing is making sure that the provisions are not put beyond doubt.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
152
Clause 101, page 100, line 43, leave out '386' and insert '391'.
153 Clause 103, page 104, line 44, leave out 'or'.
154 Page 104, line 46, at end insert 'or
(e) section 386 (election to dispense with appointment of auditors annually)'
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 152 to 154 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration of Commons Amendments be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at seven minutes before eleven o'clock.

  FAMILY CREDIT
  FAMILY CREDIT
  INCOME SUPPORT
  INCOME SUPPORT
  SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT
  SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT
  HOUSING BENEFIT
  HOUSING BENEFIT
  ESTIMATED NUMBERS RECEIVING HOUSING BENEFITS: GREAT BRITAIN MAY 1988
  ESTIMATED NUMBERS RECEIVING HOUSING BENEFITS: GREAT BRITAIN MAY 1988
  HOUSING BENEFIT: AWARDS
  HOUSING BENEFIT: AWARDS
  "OFFICIAL REPORT" PRICE
  "OFFICIAL REPORT" PRICE
  ANZAC LANDINGS: COMMEMORATION
  ANZAC LANDINGS: COMMEMORATION
  DISCONTINUED DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOL PROPERTY SALE
  DISCONTINUED DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOL PROPERTY SALE
  COAL MINES: PLANNING APPLICATIONS
  COAL MINES: PLANNING APPLICATIONS
  POLLUTION OFFENCES: PROSECUTIONS
  POLLUTION OFFENCES: PROSECUTIONS
  COALBROOKDALE AND PORCHESTER GATES
  COALBROOKDALE AND PORCHESTER GATES
  LISTED BUILDING MATTERS: CONSULTATION PROCEDURES
  LISTED BUILDING MATTERS: CONSULTATION PROCEDURES
  JUBILEE HALL, WEYMOUTH
  JUBILEE HALL, WEYMOUTH
  PWRs: FRENCH OPERATING EXPERIENCE
  PWRs: FRENCH OPERATING EXPERIENCE
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT: OPERATION OBSERVATIONS
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT: OPERATION OBSERVATIONS
  HORTICULTURAL COUNCIL AND MUSHROOM GROWERS: POLLS
  HORTICULTURAL COUNCIL AND MUSHROOM GROWERS: POLLS