Sitting of 2 March 1990

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

    Local Government Finance
    9.35 am
    Mr. Harry Barnes: This is an anti-poll tax petition. It is the tip of the iceberg and has been organised by the London Anti-Poll Tax Campaign with which I have been associated for some time, including addressing a meeting in your constituency, Mr. Speaker.The petition reads:
    "To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the People of London sheweth that legislation to introduce a poll tax will place an unbearable financial burden upon your petitioners, subsidise wealthy people at the direct expense of others, create fear and despondency amongst those who cannot pay, disfranchise many who will be frightened to claim their right to vote, attack the civil liberties of your petitioners by opening up areas of sensitive and private information for the Poll Tax Registrar, destroy the democratic freedom of your petitioners to elect local councillors who can act with a degree of independence from the power of the central state. Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take measures to hold a national referendum on the Poll Tax legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc."
    This is the worst taxation system that has ever been introduced—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech on this. He has presented the petition.
    To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day

  Planning Permission (Demolition of Houses) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.37 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Having had no more luck in 14 years of parliamentary ballots for private Member's Bills than I have had in premium bond draws, I wasted no emotional energy on hoping to get a Bill on to the statute book and I harboured no preconceptions about a desirable subject for private Member's legislation when, surprisingly, my name popped out of the hat at the beginning of this Session.
  The many unsolicited suggestions that I received were almost all for major Bills. Some were highly controversial and, moved by Member No. 6 in the order of precedence, stood no chance of reaching the statute book in the limited time available. The Bills proposed to me by the Government Whips seemed either so bland and banal as to offer no appreciable benefit to my constituents or to be legislative afterthoughts which it was really the duty of the Government to enact, rather than a private Member in probably his sole chance of a lifetime.
  Wearied by a surfeit of juggernaut Bills in Government time, I sought a short and simple measure whose object would be clearly defined in its title, whose guiding principle would be widely supported by the general public and whose philosophy was traditionally shared by my party. The measure should secure the backing of Members of all parties in the House; above all, it should accord with the publicly proclaimed policies of Her Majesty's Government. At that point, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) generously proposed that I promote his admirable one-clause Bill to make it obligatory to apply for planning permission before demolishing a dwelling house, and I readily agreed.
  Having been introduced formally by my hon. Friend in two earlier Parliaments, the Bill is by now well known to the Department of the Environment and has enjoyed favourable press comment. There has been ample time for it to be considered, not only by the Government but by all interested parties.
  My hon. Friend's list of sponsors impressed me: they were all Conservative Members with impeccable parliamentary credentials, the sum of whose total political experience was, in my view, at least a match for that of Ministers in the Department of the Environment. These Back Benchers had a proven record of distinguished service to constituents and party alike, and their collective judgment could only be regarded as sound. When it comes to private Members' Bills, by their sponsors shall ye know them.
  When I adopted the Bill, I believed that many of the arguments in favour of it would be self-evident—that they would virtually speak for themselves. Certainly I hope that neither I nor other hon. Members need detain the House with long speeches on Second Reading. The clear purpose behind the Bill accords entirely with the Government's much-vaunted desire to protect the environment—a desire

  495
  that is earnestly shared on both sides of the House, and in the country as a whole—although its detailed and technical practicalities can be fully tested only in Committee. While I do not pretend to be a planning boffin, I believe that it represents the views of people up and down the country. I make no bold prescriptive claims on its behalf, but I can assert that it meets an urgent need that should be addressed immediately.
  The 1987 Conservative election manifesto contains a section on planning and the environment, which puts the Bill in its political context. It begins:
  "Conservatives are by instinct conservationists—committed to preserve all that is best of our country's past. We are determined to maintain our national heritage of countryside and architecture … Wherever possible we want to encourage large-scale developments to take place on unused and neglected land in our towns and cities rather than in the countryside."
  Mr. Anthony Steen: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the magnificent service that he is doing to the country? The number of Conservative Members who are present this morning illustrates the concern that is felt by them, and by the planning group of which I, like my hon. Friend, am an active member.
  May I make two points? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have been slow to do something about the thousands of acres of vacant public land lying dormant and surplus to requirements? Should they not dispose of that eyesore and build on land that is being stored by public organisations, rather than on green-field sites? Secondly, as regards my hon. Friend's Bill—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Would not the hon. Gentleman's comments be made more appropriately in a speech later?
  Mr. Steen: Yes, they would, Mr. Speaker, but I shall not be making a speech this morning.
  Mr. Speaker: That is what was worrying me.
  Mr. Steen: May I finish my short intervention, Mr. Speaker? It is in the spirit of the Bill.
  Secondly, does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill, although well measured and well thought out, is likely to give rise to enormous planning bureaucracy? Will not more and more time—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am terribly sorry, but I still think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks would be more appropriate as part of a speech. I know that his constituency is a long way away, and I shall try to get him in nice and early.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I appreciate my hon. Friend's intervention, and defer to his considerable experience, which goes back many years and has done our party a singular service. I hope that he will be lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and will make an appropriate intervention later on the specific subject of the extra bureaucracy to which the Bill may or may not lead.
  The manifesto continues:
  "We want to improve on our performance in 1986, when nearly half of all new development took place on reused land."
  The overriding impression of existing planning law is that confusion reigns supreme, that inexplicable anomalies abound and that, when it comes to protecting the citizen's
  496
  residential environment, current legislation is gravely deficient. The definition of what constitutes development is itself ambiguous, being—I quote from section 22 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971—
  "the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land."
  Development, of course, requires prior planning permission. Although to the layman the wording of that provision in that 1971 Act would seem to preclude demolition of a dwelling house without prior planning permission—as demolishing a house must, by making it uninhabitable, constitute a change of use—local authorities have assumed demolition to be outside the ambit of planning control, an assumption that has not been challenged successfully in the courts.
  The man in the street cannot comprehend why planning permission should be required before a householder can initiate relatively minor changes to the size and structure of his home, which impinge very little on the amenity of his neighbours or the environment of the area, while to turn that home into a wasteground by means of demolition is unrestrainedly permissible.
  Mr. James Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend said that the proposition that demolition was not development had not been challenged successfully in the courts. Will he not go further and point out that it has been challenged unsuccessfully—in the case of nissen huts, for instance? Why has he not attempted to expand the definition of development to include demolition, which would surely be a rather simpler way of achieving what he wishes to achieve?
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful and thoughtful intervention. I was seeking to make the Bill as simple as possible; the expansion of its legislative proposals to make them more thorough and effective could readily be accomplished in Committee. That is why the Bill should go to Committee, and that is why I commend it for Second Reading today.
  No amount of willowherb in July or blackberries in autumn on a bomb site can compensate for the loss of quality of life or drop in property values of those who live around and beside sites of such legalised neighbourhood vandalism. The contrast between the necessity for prior planning permission for relatively small changes to a dwelling house and the lack of such a requirement to sanction its demolition is tantamount to granting a residential landscape greater legal protection against minor alteration than against its destruction.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Does my hon. Friend envisage that there will be an appeals procedure in the Bill? If there was such a procedure, would it not lead to blight, which might be even more deleterious to the environment than the waste land to which he has referred?
  Mr. Wilkinson: That argument is ideally suited for Standing Committee. By instinct I am inclined towards such an appeals procedure, but the arguments to the contrary advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East may be telling.
  Sadly, the abuses that I have described seldom come singularly. If two or three adjacent properties can be acquired and flattened, the unscrupulous can present to a local authority a case for redevelopment in an area which

  497
  otherwise would undoubtedly have been protected by a refusal of planning permission. Although, over the years, a specific and effective system of protecting listed dwellings and homes in conservation areas from demolition without the strictest and most exceptional prior planning permission has been in place, and has been universally welcomed, the lack of a clear legal control of demolition has long caused deep public anxiety.
  The report by Mr. G. Dobry QC which was published in 1974 on the control of demolition gave clear practical reasons for a generalised extension of planning control over demolition and those reasons remain equally valid 16 years on. His first reason related to the aftermath of demolition. Barren sites, inadequately fenced, often become a dumping ground causing general deterioration of the neighbourhood. Secondly, demolition as a fait accompli can he used by developers to force the granting of planning permission. Finally premature demolition and vacancy of residential accommodation in anticipation of development causes public disquiet.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I entirely support the admirable measure, and hope that it receives its Second Reading today. However, I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware of a further dimension to the problem. In areas of south suburban London such as mine, when houses are demolished gratuitously, it is almost an invitation for local gipsies, didicois and tinkers to come in and occupy those sites with their caravans, causing enormous annoyance to local residents and considerable law and order hazards.
  Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend has made a very wise observation; he has greatly reinforced and amplified the arguments.
  By enacting this Bill, the Government and the House could at last rectify the error of not implementing the recommendation in Mr. Dobry's report, which the Department of the Environment sponsored. The Committee stage of this Bill would usefully constitute the process of public consultation, as all interested parties would undoubtedly make representations once legislation became imminent rather than merely hypothetical.
  If the Department of the Environment were to promote its own planning Bill next Session, as has been suggested to me by Ministers—there is no certainty that it will be able to do that in current foreseeable electoral circumstances—my Bill, if enacted, could be consolidated later into the new Bill. That would save valuable legislative time in what must be the last full Session before the next general election.
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Is my hon. Friend aware that certain planning officers, particularly in my borough of Richmond upon Thames, have suggested to me that the Government are planning a consolidation of planning legislation whether or not there is a new law? Therefore, would my hon. Friend's Bill not be ideal for consolidation in the foreseeable future?
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right; I am grateful to him for that additional information from a specialist professional source.
  The Bill is not, as some would wrongly describe it, a surburban dwellers' charter or a Bill to address a problem which confronts London and the home counties alone. I remember, when I represented Bradford, West in 1970,
  498
  that the same unprincipled practices of demolition were used in Bradford to force out elderly people and break up happy communities in inner-city streets of basically sound houses to make space for high rise flats and other blots on an urban residential landscape which deserved to be cherished, not bulldozed.
  The protection afforded by listing buildings and conservation areas is not enough. Most people do not live in homes of outstanding architectural or historic interest or in neighbourhoods of obvious natural beauty. However, their homes and those of their neighbours and friends represent a treasured quality of life for them and their children for which the law, in all equity, should provide comparable safeguards. Just because people do not live in conservation areas or listed dwellings should not, by virtue of the insouciance of Government, make them vulnerable to depredations upon their environment of the demolition men.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will, I am sure, profess sympathy for the Bill. If so, I welcome it. However, he should also remember that the public will see the Government's reaction to the Bill as a touchstone of their environmental credentials.
  People will be looking to see the Government's sympathetic rhetoric matched by prompt and urgent action. I offer the Government an incomparable legislative opportunity to redress a manifest abuse. Those whose neighbourhoods are at risk from the men with the ball and chain expect action from the Government now.
  I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environnent has all the right instincts. He is courteous, sensitive, civilised, well-read and intelligent. He should do what the Labour Government did for the late Duncan Sandys's Civic Amenities Bill in 1967 which designated conservation areas—we should give this Bill a fair wind into Committee and beyond to the statute book.
  As for the number of extra planning posts that the Bill might require on implementation, I can say only that, as with the enforcement of the poll tax, the Government cart will the means if they so wish. The Government hitherto have said that they will try to have the Bill talked out. I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that loyalty should operate both ways. We must secure from Government the enactment of legislative proposals from their supporters, like this brief but constructive Bill, just as much as they demand unquestioning backing for Government legislation whose merits are, candidly, often not immediately apparent.
  I warn the House that parliamentary stratagems such as having a Bill talked out may seem the height of political sophistry to their would-be perpetrators—I have witnesses that that action has been prepared—but before it is put into action, I advise my colleagues that outside the House it will appear to be parliamentary sabotage not just of this modest but deserving legislation, but of the important Bill which lies second on today's Order Paper.
  Mr. Leigh: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Wilkinson: No. I have nearly finished.
  Before coming to the House, I did my right hon. and hon. Friends, other than Ministers and their Parliamentary Private Secretaries, the courtesy of soliciting by letter their views on my proposed legislation. Of those with prior political engagements elsewhere this day, 42 were in favour of the Bill. One was in favour, with

  499
  reservations which he said that I could doubtless remove if we were to talk. One was at the Council of Europe. Two were otherwise abroad. One kept his options open by leaving both parts of the form unmarked. Another said that he could not declare himself, let alone be present, because he would have to chair the Standing Committee if the Bill received a Second Reading. A further nine declared their support for the Bill in writing and their determination to attend the debate.
  Only one of my right hon. and hon. Friends expressed any opposition to the Bill.
  "We will plan ourselves into perdition,"
  he wrote,
  "if we are not careful."
  I hope that the Government are careful with the Bill and do not side with the odd man out. Therein lies total isolation and the road to political perdition. However, I have faith that the collective wisdom of hon. Members will prevail to see this little Bill safely through the House and to grant it a Second Reading this day.
  10 am
  Mr. William O'Brien: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on his good luck in the ballot and on introducing a Bill that will have some merit if the Standing Committee business is targeted at resolving some inherent problems in the present planning procedure. There must be procedures to ensure that permission to demolish houses is not as forthcoming as it is at present. Therefore, there is merit in considering this brief Bill.
  Reference has been made to appeals procedures. In any democracy, the individual must have the right to appeal against any decision that is taken by a local planning authority. The appeals procedure must apply in this case, as it does in other planning cases. It is important that the demolition appeals procedure is so constructed that there are no outstanding lengthy appeals as there are in other planning matters. If the Bill is granted a Second Reading, the appeals procedure will be an important topic in Committee. The appeals inspectorate must be strengthened and all aspects of planning procedures must be speeded up. Further, we must include in the legislation a provision requiring consistency in any planning proposals and decisions.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to subsidence. Mining subsidence has caused the demolition of property in many constituencies. Hon. Members must direct attention at demolition problems that are caused by mining subsidence. There must be close co-operation and discussions with British Coal when mine workings are planned in high-density residential areas. Mining subsidence problems should be considered before any demolition takes place. That may include the planning of workings in urban and rural areas where great suffering takes place because of mining subsidence.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I confess that I did not expect the debate to turn into a mining debate. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why it seems that the Labour party's policy has changed since it rejected Mr. Dobry's report in 1974? I shall be interested to hear his reply.
  Mr. O'Brien: I did not intend the debate to develop into a mining debate. I was just replying to a point that was
  500
  made by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood. He referred to subsidence. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) is trying to introduce a wider debate on mining procedures. I am prepared to do that, because I am a mining man, but I know that you would stop me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have a view, too, and I would not permit it.
  Mr. O'Brien: I do not wish to intrude on your stewardship this morning, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford wishes to raise that issue, perhaps he could do so in Committee.
  Reference has been made to the Town and Country Planning Bill now in another place. I hope that we will discuss planning procedures during the consolidation of the legislation. This brief Bill would help to strengthen the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which has been in existence for many years and needs consolidating.
  Opposition Members will not oppose the Bill. Given the proposals that have been outlined by its promoter, I support the application that the Bill should be referred to a Standing Committee. I hope that the Minister will accept the merits of the Bill and allow it to proceed to Committee.
  10.7 am
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it gives me the opportunity to pay a warm tribute to the promoter of the Bill, my hon. and good Friend and colleague the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) for his work in taking this modest measure a step further, in the crucial habit and custom—which resembles winning the treble chance except that one does not get any money—known as the ballot for private Members Bills. Even to be No. 6 has enormous potential—it is never as good as No. 1, but it is said that half way between one and 12 is pretty good.
  My hon. Friend could have chosen a number of extremely beguiling measures, such as those produced from independent intellectual thought and those coming from the Government's labours. Sometimes, interesting Government Bills can be taken up by hon. Members. Instead, my hon. Friend chose this proposal. I am most grateful to him for that and also for adhering to the original text, which was drafted with the usual consummate skill by the Public Bill Office. Lest my hon. Friend the Minister suggest that there is any deficiency in the text, I must state that it is pristine—a gem of a Bill —as I am sure he will agree if he is allowed to say what he really feels, which I know that he will be tempted to do because he is a humane man.
  Mr. Forman: He is human, too.
  Mr. Dykes: Yes, he is human, too.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood quoted several of the respondents to whom he wrote his impressive letter asking for support. I have also received some correspondence because people know that I have been associated with my hon. Friend's initiative. Although I cannot give the name, I have with me a letter from a member of the Government Whips Office. Paragraph two of that striking letter states:
  "Obviously I cannot join your delegation as a Government Whip"—
  referring to one of our visits to the Department—

  501
  "though I will most certainly be with you in spirit."
  In recent months I had become disillusioned with the Government monolith and had been thinking that there was no end to Cabinet-only rule, and that no consideration was given to alternative ideas. Perhaps it is down to one individual now and even the Cabinet only gets a little look in. Because I was demoralised by those developments, that letter gave me new hope because I knew that my parliamentary colleagues in the Government were human beings, too, and that they would listen to cogent arguments. Those cogent arguments were advanced magisterially and non-histrionically by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood.
  As both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien)—to whom we are grateful for his support—have said, the Bill may felicitously and practically be included in later consolidation if, as has been rumoured, a Government planning Bill is introduced in the autumn. It is thus not an attempt mischieviously to anticipate or to distort any future objectives. Although I should not dream of identifying them, officials in the Department have hinted that they and the Government have never really liked private Members Bills suggesting planning proposals. They are always uneasy about that and prefer it to be a departmental and official initiative. I can understand that to some extent because of the complexities of our planning laws and the underlying rules and regulations. However, the Department was moving towards an understanding of the concept of the Bill despite worries about the dangers of an increase in the bureaucracy and the expense of legitimate planning applications and their resolutions. I share that anxiety.
  Although I do not presume to be a substitute promoter for the Bill and am merely a loyal supporter of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood, nevertheless, as he so kindly said, I was the original designer of the proposal when it was launched and promulgated through the ordinary presentation procedure. However, with all the emphasis that I can command today, I stress that the Bill is not in any way an anti-property developer measure. That would be manifestly absurd for Conservative Members who strongly believe in legitimate private enterprise activity, private industry and private effort in industrial and commercial achievements. That applies to the important sector of property developers, estate developers, house builders and all those involved in the general industry. Incidentally, compared with other European countries that sector is highly developed and highly sophisticated in Britain.
  I pay tribute to the many decent property developers who, although they cannot say so publicly because presumably they have to support their federation and trade associations, have expressed a degree of support for the measure privately to me and, I believe, to a number of my colleagues. They have witnessed the vandalism that has been launched by the indecent, illegitimate and over-ruthless property developers who do not have the same regard for the general good as the vast number of decent property developers. The latter category are concerned about the need to provide lower-cost housing in the more expensive southern areas and in the greater London conurbation rather than doing as the more ruthless property developers wish and concentrating on the expensive end of the market, building £300,000 retirement flats for elderly people who no longer need a mortgage and can indulge in a cash-only deal. The decent
  502
  tribe of property developers reject that because their priority and wish is to provide socially useful housing—with a reasonable profit for themselves, of course—but they are often prevented from doing that by the activities of the indecent minority.
  Although the Bill is brief and seems modest, it is crucial because it removes an outdated anomaly. The more I think about it, the more astonishing it seems, that in 1990 there is no local control over the first crucial stage of the redevelopment process on any given site. This applies both in conurbations and in rural areas. Incidentally, we are glad to have the support of our rural colleagues from all parties. The problem affects both north and south, and it will afflict the north more and more unless we deal with it now. As I have said, there is no local control over the first crucial stage of planning and development activity, which is the demolition of an existing building or buildings.
  The rapacious minority of property developers are not concerned with the public good. My own constituency saw the notorious case in which one half of a pair of 1930s semi-detached dwellings was pulled down without the inhabitants of the adjoining house having any control or say, or even being notified. That scandal has been mentioned in the press, and it was referred to again this week in the Evening Standard.
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Spicer): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I will certainly return some compliments about him when I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have seen reports of the case to which he has just referred—indeed, a trade magazine recently carried a lengthy report of it —but how widespread is that type of case? I keep hearing about that one instance. I should genuinely like to know whether my hon. Friend has any evidence of the problem being more widespread.
  Mr. Dykes: That case triggered my attention to this amazing situation for the first time. There are no controls over the first step in the planning process although there are fully developed controls over all the rest—the redevelopment and the rebuilding. Nevertheless developers seem to have a growing tendency no longer to pull down first one dwelling but to say, "Because my super-normal profits can come only from ever larger scale developments in the face of ferocious competition from my rapacious property developer friends, whom I know intimately because we all play golf together, I must do this on an ever larger scale and pull down not one unit, but clusters of houses."
  I have heard from witnesses not only in my constituency but elsewhere, and I have with me a file containing just one twentieth of the examples that I have received from all over the country and from many colleagues, to whom I am grateful for sending me that information. Some developers pull down six, 10 or 12 houses, only to find that one awkward old lady has the cheek not to wish to leave her home. That is utter heresy and entirely unacceptable to the developers, so she has to be bribed, winkled or harrassed out.
  The phenomenon will recur in greater measure in the future. After all, to whom do the banks most wish to provide finance? It must be to the property industry, which is one of the best securities of all, notwithstanding the present recession. That is why we must deal with these problems. In answer to my hon. Friend the Minister. those

  503
  examples are widespread and of crucial importance, I repeat that that horrific case was the trigger for me. Mr. and Mrs. Williams of Harrow Weald responded with a civilised restraint which still astonishes me, bearing in mind what they have suffered. That case triggered me into paying further attention to the present extraordinary anomaly.
  Mr. O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister to visit the Docklands developments, because if he wants to see instances of developers demolishing residential properties by their tens, twenties and hundreds, the evidence is there. Good properties are being demolished without consultation with anyone. That is happening not only in the London Docklands area, but in other urban development corporation areas. The evidence exists and the hon. Gentleman should remind his hon. Friend about it.
  Mr. Dykes: That interesting thought shows once again that this issue is not simply an indulgence of outer London suburban Members of Parliament wishing to deal with a pet problem. It is a national matter, affecting urban and rural areas, north and south.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Dykes: No, I shall not give way for a moment because I may run into the danger of speaking too long and I wish to conclude with some crucial points.
  A legitimate objection to the proposals would be the fear of excessive bureaucracy and additional expense. Although I accept that point, I am convinced that that would not occur because we already regard the necessity for planning controls in the crucial first stage of any redevelopment activity—the discretionary demolition of a building—as totally normal for a conservation area or a listed building. In other, continental, countries one has to have permission for demolition.
  It is crucial that the Bill goes into Committee so that we can discuss the modalities in detail and the procedural planning administration points. If it is organised properly, the implication of having to obtain permission for demolition, dealt with either as part of the substantive planning application in one package, dealt with rapidly at stage one—notwithstanding the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood about vandalism of a site which is left untended for too long and his desire that developers should look after vacant sites—or dealt with at stage 2 of the original planning application for the new buildings, the implication will be that permission for a reasonable development will be much more easily obtainable. The incidence weight and enormous bureaucratic expense of the appeals procedure will thereby be reduced.
  Mr. Patrick Ground (Felton and Heston): Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Dykes: I shall give way if I have time. I am watching the clock and trying to make my points. I must be fair to my other hon. Friends. I know my hon. Friend's interest in planning matters and in the legal aspects.
  The great weight of bureaucratic expense is now at the other end of the procedure. Appeals are not launched
  504
  occasionally by developers but as an automatic part of the planning process. Developers know that the local committee of elected councillors will wish, respectably and legitimately, to look after the interests of local residents and electors. To say that that is illegitimate is absurd. Planning applications are often turned down for those reasons. That will not happen under this procedure, whereby the attractions of first stage approval would reverberate right through the process. It would reduce the incidence of unnecessary appeals.
  Developers now automatically put in a new plan and appeal before the current appeal—which is automatically applied for—is done away with. They can easily carry the expenses of appeals whereas the local community cannot, because the expenses are usually borne by the local authority.
  Mr. Ground: I have followed my hon. Friend's arguments closely as I did those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). One of the principal fears about the Bill is that a site may be left derelict and unattractive and become a source of vandalism and trespass for a long period. Will my hon. Friend explain how, simply by passing this measure, we do anything to prevent a site from being left vacant and in that condition?
  Mr. Dykes: More resources, both human and financial, must be put into planning matters. The Government's planning Bill next autumn will presumably deal with those matters. I know that the process has become unfair and too slow for legitimate applications by legitimate developers, whether individuals, property companies or local authorities applying for a development in another local authority area. The requirement for sites to be properly looked after and husbanded between demolition and redevelopment is already manifest and is made even more so by the proposals. Because a developer will have to obtain permission for demolition, a greater moral and legal responsibility will be placed on the person obtaining permission for demolition in the first stage to proceed with haste to the second stage. Discretion is given to split the process or to deal with it in one package.
  I now come to my last two points. I hope that I have not taken up too much time. Others may suggest that there is a recession in property now and that the pressure has gone. They suggest that the boom was merely a temporary manifestation, particularly in the sophisticated, expensive outer-London suburbs, in the south and elsewhere and it did not affect the north I reject that completely. Even if that were half true at the margin, surely the physical fact of the recession provides an opportunity for us to make this important legislative adjustment. That would be better than waiting for the next boom when it will be too late, whenever that boom may come. When the boom will come is also a matter for fascinating conjecture. Presumably it is mixed up with the equally fascinating argument of when the next general election will be.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said, the Bill needs to go into Committee. That will be the opportunity for the Minister of State with his legitimate anxieties to come along with his colleagues and his intelligent and highly educated officials and put forward complicated procedural points about administration. That

  505
  will be the time for him, as a responsible Minister must do on these occasions, to listen and cater for the anxieties of both Conservative and Opposition Members.
  The classic reaction of Governments of all parties has been to regard private Members' Bills as a tedious matter. This is a chance for the Government to show that they are green, imaginative and humane. That is important for the Government. They will also have the chance to show that they respect the will of Parliament.
  10.24 am
  Mr. Michael Shersby: I am grateful for the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on his good fortune in the ballot and on introducing this interesting, important and timely measure. My hon. Friend and I have the pleasure of representing neighbouring constituencies. Therefore, we share a common interest in the preservation of the environment in the borough of Hillingdon.
  The Bill is timely because it deals with a problem which is becoming steadily more evident and which urgently needs to he addressed. The Bill is useful. It complements the Town and Country Amenities Act 1974, which I had the good fortune to promote as a private Member and which was also supported by the Labour party. I am pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) that the Labour party supports my hon. Friend's Bill, too.
  The Bill deals with the problem of infilling. It also deals with the nasty problem of the gaps which are beginning to appear in streets and crescents throughout urban areas in Greater London, Middlesex and other parts of the country. My attention was drawn to the problem only a month or two ago by a case which arose in my constituency of Uxbridge. It involved a planning application to demolish a house and garage and to erect a two-story building containing five studio flats, several two-bedroomed flats and associated car parking.
  The proposed development was strongly resisted by my constituents in Cowley near Uxbridge. They wrote to me drawing my attention to the fact that it was a desirable house which formed part of the character of the area and that they did not wish to see it replaced by a block of flats. When the application went to the planning committee of the borough of Hillingdon, it was refused.
  The director of planning for Hillingdon wrote to me:
  "The proposal would represent unacceptable overdevelopment of the site which would be detrimental to the character and amenity of the area."
  I stress those words because they are important in this case. The would-be developer, a major national insurance company, applied for permission to demolish and to construct a block of flats in place of a much-loved local house. However, there was no reason why that developer had to apply for planning permission.
  The director of planning went on to say:
  "There was a significant level of objection to the demolition of this house and garage. However, the property is not a listed building nor is it in a conservation area and does not therefore need planning permission for demolition. While it is considered to be an attractive property, it is unlikely that the Department of Environment would agree to list a house of this age and interest."
  That raises another important point. In our country are many pleasant houses which are attractive and form part of the neighbourhood. They cannot be listed because many were built in the 1920s, the 1930s, or the 1950s. They are
  506
  the normal, ordinary kind of houses in which, probably, most hon. Members live. Today, because of the pressure for development in suburban areas, there is a tremendous temptation for some developers—not all by any means —to demolish a property and then to apply for planning permission to construct in place of a single dwelling-house a small block of flats to house five to 10 people.
  Mr. Hugo Summerson: Does my hon. Friend agree that his concern is already covered by section 58 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971? Under that section, if it appears that a building of special architectural or historic interest is in danger of demolition or alteration, the local planning authority may serve a building preservation notice.
  Mr. Shersby: My anxiety is not covered, because the building concerned may not be of special historic or architectural interest—it may simply be an attractive property, which forms part of the urban landscape. When I introduced the Town and Country Amenities Bill in 1974, it had all-party support and it dealt with enhancing conservation areas. During our discussions on it we argued that it is the familiar townscape that for the particular character of our environment and which are at risk when demolition takes place without planning permission.
  We are not dealing necessarily with houses of special architectural or historic interest; we are dealing with the ordinary dwelling house, which forms part of a street, crescent or square, whose removal damages the quality of those areas.
  Mr. Dykes: It is interesting to reflect that the planning departments of many local authorities are greatly in favour of the proposals in the Bill.
  Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend is right.
  There is a gap in the armoury of planning controls, but there has been no attempt to fill it; it has been left to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood to remedy the situation.
  Another problem that needs to be addressed is that of back-land development in urban areas. The houses in Ruislip-Northwood, and in Uxbridge, as well as in adjoining constituencies, are either detached or semidetached and have long gardens of about 240 or 250 feet. They were built in the 1920s or 1930s; I was born and grew up in such a house. Today there is a temptation for some developers to gain access to the attractive back land by acquiring and demolishing those houses, which then enables them to drive a road through and to develop another row of houses on that land.
  For many years, decent developers have applied for planning permission to demolish a property, but there is no obligation on them to do so. Consequently, it is open to the cowboy developer to acquire a property, demolish it and then to apply for planning permission for access to the back land. When a local authority planning department is faced with that problem, it is difficult for it to refuse permission, as the house that would have prevented access has already been demolished. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood has drawn attention to that problem, and I strongly endorse what he said. It is something to which the Government should address themselves.
  My hon. Friend the Minister represents a pleasant constituency in Worcestershire. I am sure that he is

  507
  familiar with the urban areas of that county as well as with those of greater London and those of other great towns and cities. The threat to the character of the environment lies principally in those areas, because there are some unprincipled developers who will use any tactic to gain access to development land. It is well known that many developers survey an area by helicopter to pick out the patches of green land. They then knock on the doors of my constituents and urge them to sell so that they can gain access. It only takes one or two people to sell for demolition to take place and access to be granted. Once that happens, however, the character of an area is changed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) mentioned houses of special architectural or historic interest, but we are talking about the houses of suburban England and that is why I support the Bill. It is well for the House to remember that, from the 1920s to the 1950s, or even later, many excellent developments were built in and around London, Birmingham, Manchester and many of our other great cities. Those developments are the heritage which people regard as extremely important today. They form the familiar townscape that people want to retain. My constituents, and I am sure those of many of my hon. Friends, do not want to live in a street where the line of the carefully planned development of the 1920s or 1930s is interrupted by a sudden gap—just like a gap in a row of teeth—which is then refilled with a nasty block, an amalgam, of small flats offered to first-time buyers at a large price.
  We are dealing not simply with planning control, but with the character of the environment, which our constituents hold dear. I hope that the Government will take careful account of that when deciding how to respond to the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow raised an important point about houses of special architectural or historic interest. One of my relatives lives in a beautiful old lath and plaster house, which is 250 years old. I spoke to him on the telephone last night and he confirmed that his house is not listed. Therefore, it could be demolished unless the planning control to which my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow drew attention was invoked. According to my relative and to others to whom I have spoken, it is not unknown, unfortunately, for old houses to collapse during refurbishment. When that happens, no planning control exercised by the local authority can possibly restore that house.
  One house, which was not listed, but was certainly 250 years old, was in the process of restoration when it collapsed during the night. When the local authority officials went to look at it, they found new window frames, new bricks and other materials in the garden all ready for the construction of the new house intended to replace the old property. Strange things can happen to old buildings during the night, and the best planning controls in the world cannot prevent the determined cowboy developer who wants to get hold of a particular site.
  I commend the Bill to the House. If there is a Division, I hope that it receives a substantial majority. It will then go into the Committee and we shall have the opportunity to
  508
  consider in detail some of the planning considerations that will undoubtedly be raised by other colleagues this morning.
  10.38 am
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: It is not only a pleasure but an honour to support my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) in the excellent Bill he has introduced. I am not only one of the named sponsors to the Bill, but was a sponsor of two previous Bills introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes).
  The Bill is one of the most sensible small measures to be presented to the House in a long time. The more I have studied the issue, the more surprised I am that it has not already been a part of planning legislation. I have read copious amounts on the background information to this Bill, including the Dobry report, which was published in February 1975. It contains virtually no mention of demolition. It was the shorter report, published the year before, which contained some evidence that demolition was a serious problem that should be covered by planning legislation.
  In paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood, I should say that, when I was first elected to the constituency of Richmond and Barnes, he was then a resident there, and I was a resident in his constituency of Ruislip-Northwood. I can well remember the joy with which we greeted each other, having given each other a vote in 1983. My hon. Friend still carries the badge that says, "I was one of the 74"—my majority was only 74 in those days. In 1987, we had both moved and he now votes for himself and I vote for myself, but that does not give me a pleasure as great as that when I voted for him. Therefore, I shall vote for him today, should the need arise.
  As my hon. Friend knows Richmond so well, he knows the problem as it affects my constituency and he knows that demolition is a scourge and an act of vandalism. It occurs more often than perhaps the Minister would care to say. Avenues have been constructed in this century, such as Kew road, which borders Kew gardens and Castelnau in Barnes which are long, tree-lined avenues that make an attractive town landscape. In Richmond we are lucky: we call it the place where the countryside comes to town. The tree-lined avenues make living in a built-up urban area bearable.
  What is so sad is that the harmonious development that created those roads is not just disturbed but ruined by demolition. In my constituency, notable houses in Kew road and Castelnau and many other streets have disappeared almost overnight. Recently, one house in Castelnau was demolished over a weekend. Those are not necessarily conservation areas. I have it on good authority from the planning department at my local council of Richmond-upon-Thames, that many councils create conservation areas specifically to protect buildings from being demolished, when in fact they may not want to create full-blown conservation areas. Councils are doing so when they should not, specifically to protect local residents' houses from impending demolition.
  My hon. Friend the Minister said that he required evidence that demolition was causing trouble, but I find that statement strange. One of the major arguments against the Bill is that it would cause massive bureaucracy.

  509
  If there is a lot of evidence of demolition, perhaps one would agree that bureaucracy might be created. However, there are not as many examples as might cause a large bureaucracy, but there are sufficient numbers to give rise to grave concern, particularly on the outskirts of London. If I am misinterpreting my hon. Friend's words, no doubt he will take me up later.
  I do not believe that we will, as has been said, almost double the number of planning consents that will be required. That is like saying that the number of marriages will be doubled if the bride and groom are counted separately. It does not make sense, because there is no demolition unless there is construction. There should be no reason why a demolition should be allowed if a construction was not following hard on its heels, otherwise, we would have exactly the problems we have heard about, of sites becoming tips.
  When I looked at the evidence showing that demolition should be part of planning controls, I found that the argument about whether demolition should constitute development was a fascinating one. It has already been said that there is some legal uncertainty about the matter, and local authorities have typically assumed that demolition is outside the ambit of development control. However, there are extensive powers within planning legislation to prevent the demolition of buildings of historic or architectural quality.
  I have already mentioned conservation areas, and the Town and Country Amenities Act 1974 brought the demolition of buildings in conservation areas under control. Therefore, some demolition features in planning control, and it is surprising that the subject is not more comprehensively dealt with in current practice.
  Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend referred to the Act that I promoted in 1974. Is he aware that in that Act I made specific provision so that a local authority could not give itself permission for the demolition of a listed building? That permission could be given only by the Secretary of State so that the right of the local authority to act as judge and jury in its own area was abolished. In promoting that change, I received support from both sides of the House. That was an important move, and it is relevant to the point that my hon. Friend makes.
  Mr. Hanley: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, I ask his forgiveness for not granting him the parenthood of that Act, which has stood the test of time.
  My hon. Friend will no doubt remember that one of the reasons for the Dobry report was parliamentary pressure. There was amazing parliamentary pressure in the early 1970s, which was why George Dobry QC, was asked to produce the report, which has also stood the test of time. He concluded that there were several "persuasive" arguments—I use his word—in favour of subjecting demolition to control. He said that, first,
  "there is a good deal of concern that the planning system should permit town centre and residential development that is sometimes strikingly out of scale or sympathy with the area affected."
  That is the point that I was making about the tree-lined avenues—that which replaces what has gone can often be out of sympathy and out of scale, and certainly ruin the amenity value of properties for other local residents.
  Dobry continued by saying that, secondly, there was "genuine uncertainty" as to the law, which was bad for all of us. He also said, thirdly, that there was "inconsistency".
  510
  Here, the argument, curiously, is that, although there are powers to control the demolition of certain buildings, there is no overall system. It is unsatisfactory to pick at certain points, rather than deal with the demolition in the round.
  He said that, fourthly, and most importantly, there are the four practical reasons to extend control over demolition. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood mentioned three of them. Dobry spoke of the aftermath of demolition and described graphically the inadequately fenced barren sites and the dumping grounds that we have all seen on those sites. The Dobry report mentioned the broken bottles, dumped cars and paraphernalia of vandalism and disorder—an excellent description. My hon. Friend also mentioned one of Dobry's conclusions, that demolition, as a fait accompli, cannot be allowed.
  Developers have a slightly dirty name; perhaps that is sometimes deserved, but not all developers are professionals. A developer can be a person who has bought a house in, say Barnes or Kew, and has decided that he wants to pull down what was perhaps a desirable residence in the 1920s and make it into what is regarded as a modern desirable property. A developer can be an ordinary person who is possibly overstretched on his loans and suffering from high rates of interest. He wants to get the job done quickly, so that the loans are not outstanding for too long. He may very well want to sell and move on soon after he has built what he may claim to local residents is his dream house.
  The developer may have put in four, five or six planning applications. They may have been turned down by the local council. Certainly many local councils turn down such applications; people then appeal to the Secretary of State. Local councillors may not want to take the political risk of accepting a planning application, so they pass the buck to the Secretary of State and the independent inspectors appointed by him.
  The developer whose five or six applications have been turned down may have been frustrated by a local council which, after all, is trying to act in the interests of local residents. But the developer knows full well that, once he has pulled down a property, the local council will be more likely to accept one of his plans, because it is better to have something in place than nothing. The fait accompli argument is a powerful one and it applies most frequently in my constituency—people pull down properties because then the council has to accept development, rather than refuse what might be regarded as reasonable or minor improvements or alterations to a property.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Does my hon. Friend accept that that result might be achieved in another way, even if this Bill were passed? A developer applies for planning permission to build a house on the basis of very low density, then demolishes the house on the site and fails to build the house that he has applied for planning permission to build.
  Mr. Hanley: I do not claim that the Bill will make all demolition and planning legislation perfect. I agree that some people may fail to develop a site after demolition, but I also believe that the Government have a duty to deal with waste land, private or public. We know that the Government are taking great steps to reduce the area of derelict land under their control and to try to encourage local authorities to use derelict land that is under their

  511
  control. Recently, a number of orders have required local authorities to use derelict land. I see no reason on earth why a local council cannot be given permission to take over land after demolition if it remains derelict for an excessively long time.
  The point remains that assurances would have been given in the application for demolition in the first place. The local authority could then use those assurances compulsorily to purchase the site, if necessary. As I said, the fait accompli problem caused by demolition is the one that affects my constituency most—the developer who puts a gun at the head of the planning department.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood also talked about premature demolition of houses and vacancies in residential accommodation in anticipation of development, which causes disquiet among local people. That can help to spread blight, but there is, as Dobry said, a need to preserve commercial and community use, and the premature demolition of shops in a redevelopment area is clearly harmful to the local economy and amenities.
  Many people believe that preventing the demolition of useful residential buildings, theatres and cinemas is equally important. There is such a head of steam behind this issue that I am surprised that the Government give every sign of being unwilling to accept this memorable little Bill.
  I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that it was a Conservative Government who commissioned the Dobry report, at a time when the property market was booming. By the time the report was completed, the property boom had collapsed and a Labour Government were in power. They published their proposals for what they called community land legislation. Cullingworth's "Town and Country Planning In Britain" an excellent tome that I invite all my right hon. and hon. Friends to read, says:
  "In short, the planning scene had changed fundamentally. In purely administrative terms, 'authorities concerned with distinguishing between applications for exempt development, excepted development designated relevant development, and non-designated relevant development could not also be expected to distinguish between class A and class B applications, and between outline illustrative, detailed and guideline applications'."
  Government decisions on the Dobry report were set out in their circular in 1975 and all the recommendations for change in the system were rejected—even though it was stressed that the objectives could be achieved if local authorities adopted what was called "the most efficient working methods".
  Dobry's view was that it is not so much the system that is wrong as the way in which it is used. That was endorsed by the Government—even though they rejected many of the recommendations—who commended the report
  "to students of our planning system as an invaluable compendium of information about the working of the existing development control process, and to local authorities and developers as a source of advice on the best way to operate within it."
  So Dobry had it right; but a Labour Government were responsible for its rejection and now, ironically, a different Government have rejected the excellent legislation proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East on two occasions.
  I have set out as comprehensively as I can the real problem that affects my constituency and others. It is not
  512
  a vast problem: there are not masses of demolitions, but when they happen they can take place in extremely sensitive places and greatly affect local people.
  There is no logic in allowing a person under our planning laws not to make a planning application to alter a property by less than 10 per cent. when we also allow a person not to make a planning application when he alters his property by 100 per cent. —by pulling it down. Where is the logic in making a person put in a planning application if he alters his house by between 100 per cent. and 10 per cent., but not if he alters it by less than 10 per cent. or by more than 100 per cent? The entire removal of a property presents the strongest possible need for an application for development.
  Planning applications are required by law, because planning affects other local people besides the person altering the property. We have planning applications because we recognise local concerns about the environment. It is therefore ridiculous that no planning application is necessary when a person pulls a whole property down. I recommend this excellent Bill to the House.
  Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask your guidance as to whether the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has said that he intends to come to the House this morning to make a statement on the House of Fraser affair. I would not ask such a question on a Friday were it not for the devious behaviour of the Secretary of State yesterday, when he announced that the Serious Fraud Office would not be prosecuting but he will have failed to provide until next Wednesday the report on which that decision was partially based.
  May I ask, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, if we do not have a statement today, we shall at least have one next Wednesday, because this is a Westland-type affair in which both the honesty and integrity of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and the Prime Minister have been called into question?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I have had no application for a statement to be made, but no doubt what has been said will have been heard by the Patronage Secretary who is in his place.
  10.59 am
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I welcome this short Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and which is supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). They expressed the hope that the Government will accept the Bill as a touchstone of the Government's concern for the environment.
  In the opinion polls one looks for issues about which people are concerned and finds that they are concerned about this issue. I have no worries about the next general election, but I hope that before the time comes the Government will remember what people are thinking about. They are thinking about the preservation of the environment, and not just the green environment, smokeless zones and the burning of old boots, but about people having decent places in which to live. Such matters

  513
  will influence how people will vote. I shall be shocked and horrified if the Government do not accept this Bill with acclaim, because it will reduce much suffering.
  It is amazing that houses can be knocked down without permission. I do not know how anybody could oppose the Bill because it is such obvious common sense. Houses are part of Britain's social capital. They cost tens of thousands or hundreds or thousands to build and before they are knocked down a decision should be made that something better should replace them. If such a decision is not made, the houses should be left alone. We do not want the whole of Britain being made into a conservation area, but if that would stop such demolition I should even go that far.
  As my hon. Friends have said, buildings are usually knocked down and replaced by something that will make more profit more quickly. That usually means that good family houses are demolished and generations of families are broken. The houses are replaced by tiny flats, reminiscent of a doll's house society, with window boxes the only place where there is anything growing. We call this the century of improvement, but people in the next century will laugh at us.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has left the Chamber. I live in his constituency and he and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East know that three houses from where I live a big old house was knocked down for redevelopment. A planning application was turned down by the council and was passed to the Department. In one of its wiser moods the Department turned it down. Although we cannot always rely on the Department being wise—
  Mr. Hanley rose—
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall give way in a moment when I have finished my sentence, otherwise I shall forget where I have got to.
  The application was turned down by the council for the second time. The matter was spread over five or six years and it cost local residents thousands of pounds to fight the issue. The council in Harrow is Conservative, but this is a problem with all parties. Permission has now been given by the Council for a block of flats, which will change the whole area. The effect will be like leprosy and good houses in which family after family have been brought up will be replaced by tiny boxes. I trust that the Bill will have all-party support.
  Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) referred, is a sponsor of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is unable to speak to the Bill because he assists the Minister.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I felt that I was speaking for my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and I am sure that he would have endorsed what I have said. I am sure that the Minister will be delighted that his Parliamentary Private Secretary has been assisted in that way. I thought that it was my duty to involve him in everything that I said, and I am sorry that he was not here to acclaim the phrases that I used.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East knows about big store development, which is a menance. Superstores should be outside cities. They should not be near main roads where traffic is held up, and should not
  514
  involve knocking down good houses. The Kenton road bridges my constituency and the constituency of Harrow, East. One of the great store firms has been trying to build a superstore here and that will mean the demolition of superb houses. It will also mean that traffic will not be able to move and people will be playing chess on the way to work. Traffic on the Kenton road does not move now for three hours in the morning and for three hours at night. People will soon have to leave for work at 2 am or go by parachute or helicopter.
  The plans were called in by the Department, whose prayers were answered by the Almighty in the right way, because the plans were turned down. They were turned down a second time by the council, but now the store firm is trying for a third time and is buying up houses. About 20 or 30 three and four-bedroon houses, the basis of family life, have been bought. They were built in the 1930s and 1940s and would normally last longer than some houses that are being built today. I am not saying that they will be knocked down, but I suspect that that will happen because the houses are being bought up at above the market price. A road could be built there and perhaps one could get through on a bicycle on a good day. The houses could be knocked down at any time and more family houses will have gone.
  The Bill is long overdue. I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has arrived. I referred to certain events in his constituency and he would have supported me with acclaim if he had been here. I know that he will regret for the rest of his life that he was not here.
  I hope that next year we shall see a consolidation measure for planning. That is desperately needed and if the Government want to revive themselves—and I should like to see some resuscitation from time to time—such an environment measure would help tremendously and would show that at last some sense is coming back to us. I have the greatest respect for the Minister and I trust that at the end of the debate I shall respect him even more, because I hope that he will assure us that if the Bill does not go through, the Government will deal with three other matters. It would be nice to hear what a consolidation Bill will contain.
  The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) spoke about appeals. At present there is no natural justice on appeals. A developer can appeal, but people who live in an area and whose environment will be destroyed cannot. There should be an appeal system against developers. The system should work both ways and natural justice is long overdue. Secondly, no one should be able to apply for planning permission unless he owns the houses that will be affected or has written permission from the people who live in them.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: Hear, hear.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: My hon. Friend took me by surprise with his naval "Hear, hear". Only we two who were in the Navy are able to recognise the strength of that acclamation. I am glad that I did not serve under my hon. Friend because I would have been afeard at such a tierce turn of phrase. I am grateful for his support.
  Blackmail comes into this matter. People buy houses and apply for planning permission. They then say to a little lady that she will be the only one left and had better sell. I know of a case where permission was sought for

  515
  development affecting 700 houses and the prospective developer did not own one of them. Even the lampposts had signs on them. Hundreds of people living there were terrified because they felt that somehow they were being threatened.
  My final point concerns the preservation of the green belt of suburbia. Green belts in the countryside are all very well, but most people do not have the time to enjoy them. They want to enjoy the green belt that is provided by their gardens, rather than suffer back-garden development. The same applies in respect of playing fields and public open spaces. Two are currently under threat in my own constituency, including Westfield college sports field. In my constituency, sports field after sports field has disappeared, so less sport will be played in the future than in the past. Fortunately, the plan concerning the one now under threat has been called in by the Department of the Environment. Although I cannot influence its decision, I may say that it is greatly desired by my constituents that both applications should be rejected and that the two sports fields be kept open.
  As to back-garden development, reference has been made to the use of helicopters in photographing potential development sites. A man knocked on my door offering me an aerial photograph of my house. He explained that a helicopter had been used to fly over the area to identify potential development sites, and thought that I should like to buy a copy of the photograph. I did not know what to do with him. Was one to attack him, have him arrested, or reward him for his initiative? I was amazed that he had the effrontery not only to assist in destroying my neighbourhood but to try to sell me copies of his photographs as well.
  I do not suggest that the Bill can deal with such a situation, but the problem of back-garden development certainly exists in my constituency—particularly in Tudor gardens, about which I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister again only this week. The Bill itself, the size of the attendance by my hon. Friends, and the support of the hon. Member for Normanton show the amount of public concern for environmental protection. It is wrong that houses can be so easily knocked down. The existing appeals system is also wrong.
  I look forward to the Bill receiving its Second Reading, and to receiving an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Bills for consideration next Session will include one that covers the right of appeal by the public against development, the obtaining of written consent from the owners of all the houses involved in a development before a planning application is made, and additional measures to guard against back-garden and playing field development. I entirely support the Bill.
  11.12 am
  Mr. Patrick Ground: I declare an interest, in that I have been practising at the planning Bar for more than 20 years. The Bill will undoubtedly give rise to many planning appeals, which will no doubt be very beneficial to the planning Bar. Therefore, I have a clear interest in favour of the passing of the Bill.
  I have a number of reservations about the Bill as drafted, and suggest that a number of its aspects require further thought. I acknowledge the popular concern, to
  516
  which my hon. Friends have referred, relating to the demolition of large houses with large gardens and their replacement by developments of an over-high density that are inappropriate to the surrounding area and very often contrary to the provisions of the local plan and development plan. Such concern is widespread in the constituency that I represent and that in which I live. There is a need for policy consideration and a strong case for more intervention by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in local plans and the implementation of planning controls.
  Local authorities are often to blame for developments that take place on their own land, which aspect requires even more urgent consideration. I wholly support the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) about sports fields and gardens. The erosion of sports and public open spaces, and of private open spaces, in London—particularly west London—is a matter of considerable concern that ought to be occupying the attention of the Department of the Environment. It is no accident that the existing legislation is as it is, and that there is an absence of any controls on demolition other than where it constitutes an engineering operation, or where the building is listed or is in a conservation area. The absence of any controls where no engineering operation is involved dates from the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which was passed by the post-war Labour Government.
  During the debate, my hon. Friends referred to a number of sound Conservative principles, but I suggest that a number of sound Conservative principles were enacted by the post-war Labour Government—such as the assumption that an owner should be free to do as he wishes with his property and should be allowed to do so, provided that it is not objectionable on grounds of land use or planning policy. That is a key principle in current legislation, which relies on the premise that the self-interest of the landowner is not to keep his land empty and non-productive and that there will be a strong motivation for him to develop it whenever that is possible.
  One must question whether such a Bill is really needed. Would its objectives be better achieved by the use of existing powers or by modifying existing policies? Should we not be careful about imposing more controls than are needed? Any new controls should also be certain of achieving their stated purpose.
  The principal objective of the Bill that I discern from the speeches of my hon. Friends is that of preventing sympathetic buildings, often located in large gardens, from being demolished when the sites are either likely to be left derelict for some time and become an eyesore, or be replaced by a development that is out of keeping with the area or at too high a density—or perhaps both.
  If the Bill is passed, on what criteria would permission to demolish be given or withheld? One is talking of houses that are not of special architectural or historical interest or in a conservation area.
  Mr. Wilkinson: But my hon. and learned Friend will agree that they are nice to live in, and that the people who do so appreciate them.
  Mr. Ground: Permission to demolish such properties cannot be refused on the grounds of historical or architectural interest. Perhaps such properties should be in

  517
  a conservation area, but by definition they are not, so the matters that could be relied on to prevent or to restrict redevelopment in a conservation area are not applicable.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Given my hon. and learned Friend's considerable expertise, I am listening to him with much interest. Is he saying that, even if the Bill were passed, there would be no planning grounds to refuse permission to demolish a house that was neither listed nor in a conservation area?
  Mr. Ground: I am not saying that there would be no grounds; I am asking the House to consider what the grounds would be for refusing consent. My hon. Friends have assumed that planning permission for redevelopment or for new building on such a site would be forthcoming from the planning authority or from the Secretary of State. If planning permission were forthcoming from the local authority, under existing practice there could be no justifiable planning reason for refusing consent. If consent were refused by the local authority, under existing law and practice the Secretary of State may make an order for costs against it.
  Our current practice may need revision, and perhaps the fact that a house is nice to live in should be incorporated in legislation, but without the introduction of some new concept, I can see no valid reason for refusing planning consent.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. and learned Friend explain why in certain residential areas, in which there are neither listed buildings nor conservation areas, permission must be requested to cut down trees on which preservation orders have been placed, yet houses require no such permission to be demolished? I find that perplexing. Will my hon. and learned Friend turn his legal mind to that?
  Mr. Ground: I should not wish to detain the House with an exposition on tree preservation orders, but the planning policy in the local plan could encourage the retention of existing housing and discourage its replacement by new housing.
  For buildings developed some years ago, which have generous accommodation and space and which, although not of historic interest or in a conservation area, are valuable and should be retained, it is perfectly possible to achieve that end under local planning policy, which should he strong enough, if attacked on appeal, to prevent the granting of planning permission. That would be an effective remedy to achieve my hon. Friend's objective, but the simple requirement to obtain planning permission for demolition without a change of policy, would not do so.
  The Bill would be ineffective in reducing the risk of dereliction. The planning Acts contain no positive measures to compel a developer to proceed with a development. If he is required to obtain planning permission before being allowed to demolish, there is nothing to prevent him from applying for another planning permission, because there is no limit on the number of planning permissions that can validly exist for a site. The freedom to carry out any one of those developments is in the hands of the developer, provided he has not lost the benefit of one of the planning permissions by taking some thoroughly inconsistent step that makes them impossible to implement.
  I do not believe that the Bill would achieve the objective of reducing dereliction, and it may impose an additional
  518
  bureaucratic requirement, which could add to the period required for redevelopment. Instead of leaving a site derelict, it could lead to properties being left empty while permission was sought.
  From my experience as a resident and as a Member. I am sympathetic to the objectives of the Bill. I should like to see them achieved by local and, if necessary, national policy changes. But I doubt the wisdom of making that additional requirement without corresponding changes in law and practice to make it effective.
  11.26 am
  Mr. Ian Stewart: The speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham arid Heston (Mr. Ground) was important, because it raised for the first time some of the Bill's practical implications.
  I am very sympathetic—I may go so far as to say extremely sympathetic—to the concept that led my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Dykes) arid for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) to introduce the Bill, and I congratulate them on doing so. There is no doubt that the random demolition of buildings has caused many difficulties—not only for the environment but for transport and many other things in urban areas.
  With the exception of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), hon. Members who have spoken represent London constituencies or constituencies close to London. I should like to make a few comments as someone who represents what is basically a rural area. North Hertfordshire is between 30 and 50 miles from London, but it is sufficiently far away not to be affected by the same considerations as those raised by my hon. Friends.
  My constituency covers about 150 square miles, and there are four separate towns—one ancient market town of some size, Hitchin, two smaller towns, Baldock and Royston, and Letchworth, the first garden city in the world. The planning considerations that affect them are very different for each. They are also rather different from the planning considerations that affect the London area, about which we have heard so far.
  I want to consider the practical implications in the planning process and the redevelopment process in those areas of my constituency if the Bill were to reach the statute book. I am open-minded at this stage, but I am a bit sceptical about the practical implications of the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to give us more insight into the Government's thinking and into what legislation may be in train which, whatever the fate of the Bill, may incorporate some recognition of the need to tackle the problems caused by demolition and by the relative lack of control over demolition at present.
  The most difficult question is what is the interest of the community, as represented by the planning authority, as opposed to the interest of the current and future occupants of the properties concerned. I was interested in the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston about which factors would be taken into account in considering the demolition aspects of planning permission under such a system. I have three main areas of concern, and I hope that, later in the debate, some light may be thrown on them.
  I comment in passing—this is no reflection on the Chair —that it is in some ways a pity to have so many

  519
  contributions from sponsors of the Bill coming first, because fewer of them are left to respond to the queries and concerns of other hon. Members.
  I have listened carefully to earlier contributions. There are some gaps in the argument for the Bill, which is in a rather bare form. One could argue that, by adding many new clauses and accompanying the Bill with a considerable back-up of guidance or regulation about the way in which such a system will work, one could formulate a new system which would enable planning procedures to cover demolition as effectively as building. However, I must confess, without having any grudge against the Bill—I have some enthusiasm for the underlying idea that demolition has now become a considerable problem which needs attention—that I am not convinced by the arguments I have heard this morning that its aims could be achieved.
  My first point is not my main one. As some of my hon. Friends have already said, we should not lose sight of the fact that local authorities are not necessarily reliable in their opinion of what should or should not be demolished. Part of my early political experience was working in the borough of Lewisham, and the first constituency that I contested at a general election was Hammersmith, North. In both cases, the local authorities committed widespread demolition of what would now be regarded as very attractive houses which were built perhaps 100 years ago. Many were in need of modernisation and perhaps some extension, but their demolition has left great areas in those boroughs deprived of older-fashioned housing of a type that is now more popular.
  The boroughs replaced those houses with some monstrosities. Tower blocks not only generate terrific winds but provide no suitable play areas equivalent to the gardens which the houses used to have. People who live on the upper floors, especially those with young families, have a difficult and hazardous occupation.
  I remind the House of that episode, which happened mainly in the 1960s, to point out that one cannot assume automatically that local authorities possess a reliable wisdom about which areas of urban landscape can be done away with and replaced by some residential or other building. Abuse by local authorities can manifest itself in other ways.
  I have the misfortune to represent a constituency that has Stevenage on its borders. About 20 years ago, Stevenage was within the constituency, but it grew so fast that it had to be taken out when the boundaries were redrawn. It is a great post-war new town and is laid out on such extravagant lines that there is a vast amount of wasted space for accommodation and other building within its boundaries. Yet the borough council has relentlessly refused to encourage infilling and development within its boundaries.
  To my astonishment and dismay, it has succeeded in persuading the Secretary of State that its requirement for extra housing should be achieved by pushing out its boundaries. It is already far too big geographically for an urban area in the middle of one of the home countries. The solution has been that its boundaries should be developed further, and they are creeping into my constituency,
  520
  although there is a great deal of wasted space within Stevenage. That is a direct result of the planning policy of Stevenage borough council, in which I have no confidence.
  I will forbear pointing out to hon. Members the political complexion of Stevenage borough council, because it is possible that councils of other political complexions may have ideas about the way in which the locality should develop which are unacceptable in the long term, which may conflict strongly with the individual views of people who live in or near that area and which may not take their interests properly into account. It is an important, although not a central, point that we should recognise that planning authorities will not necessarily operate in the long-term interests of people in the area on demolition and reconstruction.
  My second point is more important and serious. Will a procedure such as that in the Bill slow down what is already a rather arthritic process? Planning applications are considered by planning officers, then by planning sub-committees and then by the whole council, after which they may go to appeal. The system is already pretty protracted. In my constituency, there has been considerable pressure for extra accommodation. One cause is that the whole planning process takes a long time to complete. We must accept that, with the population pressures in the south-east, further dwelling units—a horrible phrase, but it is the jargon—must be provided on a considerable scale. Figures from the Department of the Environment show that, in the last 14 years of the century, there will be almost 1 million extra households in the south-east.
  The reason is not that people are moving in from other parts of the country. Indeed, people are tending to move out of the area, which is not surprising in view of house prices. The reason is that family units are becoming smaller, and that people are getting married younger and wanting to be in their own accommodation. People want to live near their families and in the area in which they were brought up, so there is a need for more units than there were before. That can be achieved only by increased density, by expanding the boundaries of urban areas or, in some cases, by replacing older accommodation with new accommodation which contains more separate units.
  There is a strong economic and social motivation— which, in itself, is not objectionable—for replacing some larger, older properties with new, more separate accommodation units. That is happening in, for instance, Hitchin, Baldock and Royston. In my area, the problem has been dealt with partly through expansion of the areas over which development is carried out and partly through some infilling, but also through the replacement of older properties. I fear that the Bill could slow down the process.
  That leads me to my third major worry, which reflects what my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) has said. If I were a member of the relevant sub-committee of North Hertfordshire district council, or of the planning officer's department, I am not sure what recomendation I could possibly make for or against the demolition of specific buildings: surely I would not have to say, "It is perfectly acceptable to knock down any or all of the houses in Acacia avenue, but none must be knocked down in Willow crescent."
  One of my hon. Friends observed earlier that a homogeneous row of houses, of uniform and attractive appearance, would become very unattractive if a gaping hole suddenly appeared because one of the houses had been knocked down to be replaced by a building

  521
  containing perhaps half a dozen flats. None of the Bill's sponsors, and none of those who have spoken most passionately in its favour, has addressed the further question of how to devise a remotely fair or reasonable system for deciding which property should receive such treatment.
  The present presumption is that development may take place provided that it conforms to the existing criteria, which include the local plan and requirements relating to access, traffic, density and infrastructure. Clearly the criteria will be heavily influenced by the supply, or lack of supply, of housing in the area; they will also take into account such matters as design and aesthetics, although not to any major extent.
  The argument advanced this morning, however, is based principally on less tangible factors such as appearance and the general environmental impact on a particular collection of houses built in a certain period and style. Of course residents will become used to the appearance of a locality: some of the towns and villages in my constituency are very attractive, and I would be the last to want them to change. It is, however, exceptionally difficult to quantify or codify such factors in a form that would operate effectively in the appeal system and would enable councils to deal fairly and consistently with the collective interests of local people.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Does my hon. Friend envisage a two-tier system whereby some buildings, although not considered to possess enough intrinsic merit to warrant their being listed or forming part of a conservation area, would nevertheless be refused demolition, for no obvious reason?
  Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend must be a mind-reader: I was coming to that point. We already have procedures to allow the listing of individual buildings, and the designation of groups of buildings as a conservation area. The Bill, I believe, would create, if not a universal urban listed-building or conservation-area designation, at least the presumption of a third tier, which could be invoked to prevent or discourage development that could only lead to demolition.
  Mr. Ground: Is my hon. Friend aware that an informal third category already exists in a number of areas? It is variously described, but is sometimes referred to as "buildings of townscape value".
  Mr. Stewart: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his helpful intervention. It seems to me almost inevitable that such a concept will develop if the Bill is enacted, and arguably it should do so regardless. My constituents seem much more concerned about planning applications nowadays: they worry not only about what may appear on a particular site, but about the possible loss of what they regard as an attractive prospect or a social amenity.
  It would be dangerous to enact such legislation without a much clearer idea of how it will work in practice, and whether the presumptions about demolition and development will change. The argument that demolition would in itself damage or remove a building or buildings of aesthetic value or general public amenity could act as a focus for those opposed to all development: it could be used not for the purpose that lies behind the Bill, but as an
  522
  obstruction to development that is, as far as I can see, unavoidable in my constituency and those of a number of London Members.
  I say that not because I am an expert on planning, but merely because, like all hon. Members, I receive a good deal of constituency feedback on planning matters, both from those who want more accommodation built to ease the housing pressure and from those who oppose a change in the appearance of their locality. I suspect—although I am willing to be disabused—that, if the legislation were enforced without careful consideration of the criteria for and against demolition, planning permission procedures would be much lengthier and more complicated, and also more difficult to implement.
  We would also become confused about the purpose of a restriction on demolition. I do not want to finish on a carping note, nor do I disagree with the Bill's principle. I do not believe that wanton and random demolition, often in the worst interests of commercial development, should be allowed to continue. We must achieve greater control over such demolition. However, I believe that the issues are not nearly as straightforward as they appear in this two clause Bill.
  I want to end with a point which might apply whether or not demolition is addressed by his Bill or in any other way, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will consider this. I have been struck by the difficulties facing pedestrians, traffic and the general public as a result of the redevelopment of urban sites.
  Many traffic delays occur because people park in the wrong places and often because of natural congestion. However, many of the problems are caused by the intolerable intrusion on to our highways of work around building sites, where land is fenced off and lorries may be parked in inconvenient places. What constraints exist on people who want to demolish and redevelop property? What costs must they bear to compensate for the nuisance to the immediate local community and for the vast amount of man hours that are wasted as a result of traffic delays? I hope that that factor will weigh more strongly in decisions to allow demolition to replace buildings, particularly in the most crowded areas of our towns arid cities.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood for giving us this opportunity to discuss a very important matter. Whatever happens to this Bill, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of the Environment will take seriously the concerns that have been expressed by all hon. Members about the potential abuses in demolition, however best my colleagues decide to resolve the problems.
  11.52 am
  Mr. Matthew Carrington: There is a common feeling in the House today that we all accept the need for a measure to stop the capricious demolition of houses by people who do that for reasons that are not in the interests of the local community. However, the Bill highlights wider problems than those that it attempts to address directly. It raises problems in our planning laws, which are long overdue for review and perhaps systematic reform. There are many abuses of the planning system, in addition to that described in the Bill.

  523
  We have heard some very well argued and cogent reasons why the Bill may be technically flawed. However, we must consider reasons, which may not be within the legal framework, why buildings are demolished prior to the granting of planning permission for their replacement. We must consider why that happens, because if we understand the reasons we shall be better able to tackle the problem.
  Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the description of the Bill as technically flawed in its present form on Second Reading is not correct because it is quite normal for private Member's Bills and others to have additional technical clauses drafted to them in Committee to take care of the technicalities? The Bill has a positive advantage in that it is a two-clause Bill with a basic principle built into it.
  Mr. Carrington: I agree with much of that. However, the point has been made cogently that the problem ranges wider than the issue addressed in the Bill. Consequently, the knock-on effects—for want of a better description—of the changes that the Bill would introduce into the planning system must be considered when we take account of the necessary legislative changes. Obviously the Bill can be amended in Committee to address those problems, but the problems are substantial.
  I want now to consider the reasons why buildings are demolished prior to the granting of planning permission. No one who owns a building would want to demolish it and leave the site vacant and not producing an income. No one would want investment in a property to become a hole in which to sink more money instead of something that might produce income or serve as a home. It is very unlikely that it will be in the interests of a developer—for want of a better expression—to knock down a building prior to having an alternative use for that site with which he or she proposes to go ahead.
  Our present planning laws create circumstances in which it is in the interests of developers to demolish property without prior planning permission. Many of the reasons for that arise largely from frustrations with the planning system.
  There are delays in the planning system at present. If one makes an application to develop a site in most of the London boroughs—and certainly in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham—that planning permission may take up to six months to reach the first stage in the process. One also faces the expectation that the local planning decision will be taken for reasons that may be seen as capricious. It may not be taken for reasons that are designed purely to reflect the planning needs of the site.
  That leads to an automatic appeals process straight to the Department of the Environment. That process is supposed to protect both sides, to ensure that local decisions are taken in the interests of the community and in the interests of the developer. However, I believe that there are serious problems with the appeals process at the DOE. A specialist inspector makes a career of sitting on planning inquiries, either public inquiries or written-in inquiries. He will take evidence and then make a decision.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend said that the appeals process is intended to protect both sides. Does he accept that there is no appeal against the granting of planning permission, but there is appeal only against its refusal?
  Mr. Carrington: I agree with my hon. Friend and I intended to consider that point later.
  We are seeing increasing abuses of the planning system by local authorities, which grant themselves planning permission on their own sites for developments that are considerably in excess of any that they would grant for a third party. The objectors cannot appeal against the council granting its own planning permission. That is the greatest abuse of the lack of appeal once planning permission has been granted.
  I believe that the inspector's role is inherently unsatisfactory. An inspector may or may not take a decision based upon an objective view of the evidence. No doubt he will take a decision that is strictly in accordance with the legal requirements. However, as in any planning decision, a considerable amount of subjective evidence must be assessed by the inspector. On legal grounds, his decision could go either way. All hon. Members have seen examples in their constituencies of when an inspector's decision was controversial and reflected his own prejudices.
  We have a somewhat capricious appeals system that does not work satisfactorily. It was never intended to work in that way. Certainly, in many London areas, it is effectively a planning process of first call. Having waited for their statutory eight weeks, developers will automatically appeal. Instead of a local authority bringing local considerations to bear on planning applications, it will now consider automatically opposing an appeal to the inspector. The inspector effectively takes the decision of first call in any planning application. That system is inherently unsatisfactory, and the appeals system was never designed to cope effectively, nor does it cope effectively.
  Developers end up with considerable frustration with the planning system, and that leads to the demolition of buildings. It forces a decision on to the planning process. The local authority and the inspector are forced into a decision when a site causes considerable local aggravation because it is an eyesore, because it is being squatted on by people in caravans, or purely because of weeds. That produces pressure for the granting of planning permission, which would not otherwise exist.
  There is another effect on developers. In inner London, developers increasingly find themselves subject to a section 52 agreement—especially in respect of large developments —to provide what is somewhat laughingly called planning gain to the community for a development. In principle, there is nothing wrong with a section 52 agreement. In practice, a local authority often sells planning permission to a developer in return for what is perceived to be an asset, whether in the form of cash or housing built elsewhere in the community. The local authority grants planning permission that it would not otherwise have granted, and the process rapidly becomes an abuse of the planning system. Developers will resist a section 52 agreement by applying any pressure that they can. By pre-emptive demolition of an existing building, they strengthen their own hand when negotiating their section

  525
  52 agreements. The other reason for demolition, which I suspect applies in particular to well-established urban areas, is pre-emptive strike against the listing of a building.
  For a great many buildings in this country—fortunately, fewer since we reviewed the statutory lists of buildings of historical interest—if they had been brought to the attention of the authorities in time, they would unquestionably have been listed. If they were not listed when initially brought to the attention of the authorities, given enough time and the changing perceptions of the desirability of retaining buildings, they would be listed then. Ten years ago, there was a perception that buildings that were built in the 1930s were only occasionally of a sufficient quality to be listed. There is now a growing conviction in conservation and architectural circles that many buildings from the 1930s should be statutorily listed —far more than have been statutorily listed. There are now more listed buildings from the 1950s than anyone who was brought up at that time would reasonably consider possible. There are fashion changes in listing requirements.
  There will always be gaps in statutory listing, which can be filled only when the gaps are pointed out. A gap is frequently pointed out when there is an application to redevelop a building. The developer, knowing full well that there is a possibility that the building that he wishes to demolish will be statutorily listed, will pre-emptively demolish the building overnight. Some spectacular examples have hit the national press—for example, the Hoover building on the Great West road some years ago, and Kensington town hall about seven years ago. Many smaller examples do not fit into the same category. The problem can be tackled by establishing conservation areas. However, it must be recognised that many buildings are inherently desirable, but they are not in places where we would wish to create conservation areas. They may be isolated within a modern development or they may be in a shopping area where one would not wish to go through all the necessary planning problems that are inherent in a conservation area. There is no doubt that there is a strong case for controlling the demolition of buildings prior to planning permission being granted.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend spoke about the Hoover building and Kensington town hall. I was a local councillor in Kensington and I was vaguely involved in the demolition of the building. Does my hon. Friend accept that the Bill would not address those buildings because it refers only to dwelling houses?
  Mr. Carrington: I certainly recognise that point. That is one reason why I expressed concern about the extent of the Bill. I used those two examples to illustrate a well-publicised facet of the problem with dwelling houses. Many dwelling houses have the same statutory problems. I do not criticise the demolition of Kensington town hall —there were good reasons for it. I have been a long-standing resident of the borough of Kensington and Chelsea and I am well aware of the problems that existed. There was a strong argument that the potential listing of Kensington town hall was done by the Greater London Council for reasons other than conservation. That is another matter. The fact remains that the demolition was done to avoid statutory listing.
  Mr. Ground: Does my hon. Friend's answer mean that, in principle, he would support consent being required for the demolition of any building? What is the basis for
  526
  confining protection to residential purposes? As he has pointed out, commercial buildings often occupy large areas and give rise to large-scale problems.
  Mr. Carrington: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. It is unreal in planning regulations to make a pernicious distinction between domestic dwellings and commercial developments. The attraction of a building to a community lies in its design and nature, not in the use to which it is put. In other words, an attractive, well-designed and historically interesting building could have a variety of uses within its lifetime. We have only to look at the uses to which redundant churches are put to see how true that can be. A building can start as an ecclesiastical building, become a domestic dwelling, and end up as an office block, all within the lifetime of the same structure. The same artistic and conservation problems are inherent in such a building, although the different pressures to allow change of use may be inherent in the use of the building rather than in its architectural design.
  The problem is how to achieve the necessary control. We can end up with a situation in which the undoubted rights of a property owner to enjoy his property free from any outside constraint are completely out of balance with his neighbours' rights to maintain the amenity of their properties. We must achieve a balance in planning law between the rights of the person who owns the property to enjoy that property and the rights of the local community, including the neighbours or, increasingly, the rights of the rest of the community, to preserve the overall aspect of their area. In urban planning terms, that can mean a community's right to maintain the streetscape. That is an important balance.
  There are several basic problems with the Bill. One is that an appeal process would have to be allowed for any application to demolish that is not connected to an application to redevelop. Obviously, an appeal process would present difficulties because a local authority could refuse an application in the knowledge that the appeal process could be so stretched out as to make any reasonable application to demolish a useless tool for the developer who could not then make proper use of his own land. Therefore, in my view, if after a certain period—perhaps just a few weeks—no objection about the demolition was made to the local authority permission to demolish should be deemed to have been granted. That would mean that permission could not be withheld without an extremely good reason.
  We must also find means of stopping the unreasonable delays in the planning process. I cannot believe that we should willingly add the problems of an appeal on the application process to the burdens that the planners or the local authorities already face without addressing the reasons for those great delays. The local authorities and the appeal process must be required to ensure that planning permission is granted within a reasonable time.
  I have a great deal of sympathy with the Bill, which fills a great gap in our planning laws. However, it is just one aspect of the now absolutely necessary overall review of our planning laws. We must urgently address the conflict relating to the powers of the local planners, granted by the Department of the Environment which, as I mentioned when discussing the role of inspectors and the appeal processes, have now got out of line. The use of the section 52 agreement is now a major scandal, which also needs to be addressed urgently. As my hon. Friend the Member for

  527
  Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) said, there is a great problem with the objector's right to appeal on a planning permission that has been granted by a council, especially in relation to its own land.
  I hope that the Bill progresses further today. However, if it does not manage to achieve its Second Reading today —for whatever reason—I hope that the Government will bear in mind the very real problems that it attempts to address and that in the new planning Bill, which is being trailed for the next Session, they will ensure that those problems are corrected. I hope that a way will be found to ensure that the abuses about which we have heard today are brought to an end.
  12.13 pm
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Spicer): My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) began his important speech by talking about a common desire to protect the environment. He was being over-generous, because the total absence of any Opposition Members from this debate seems to suggest that the "environmental credentials"—to use one of my hon. Friend's phrases—of the Labour party have evaporated into thin air. So far there have been only two contributions from Labour Members—perhaps there will be more later—one of which related to Harrods. It seems bizarre that the future of Harrods can be of greater importance today than the future of the environment.
  The House is undoubtedly indebted to my hon. Friend for giving it its first chance for many months to debate planning matters. The debate has properly ranged over a wide variety of planning issues, not the least important of which has just been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington). My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood made a cogent and well-argued case for including the demolition of houses in planning legislation. He was ably supported by the Bill's sponsors, and most notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), to whom the whole House is indebted for his hard work on this issue over some time.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood put it, the case a persuasive one. Opportunistic developers buy large houses and demolish them, leaving the site vacant, thus exerting pressure on both neighbouring property owners to sell and on local authorities to give planning permission for the redevelopment. That is a persuasive scenario.
  My hon. Friend's warnings relate to the threat of town cramming and to housing development of an inappropriate density. Like others, my hon. Friend has also expressed understandable concern for the future of unlisted but "interesting" buildings, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has called them, such as Victorian and Edwardian houses. The Government accept that those anxieties need to be seriously considered afresh and with an open mind. However, in so doing we are bound to take into consideration the other perspectives from which many people see those issues. Some of those perspectives were described from a position of great knowledge by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for
  528
  Feltham and Teston (Mr. Ground), by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham.
  Some of those different perspectives include the rights of private property owners within the planning system. We have to consider whether it is right to restrict an owner from demolishing his own building when it is in a poor state of repair, when it requires a great deal of work to bring it up to modern standards or where the demolition of the building could improve the environment—as indeed it might. There must at least be compelling reasons for interfering with the freedom and rights of ownership.
  What is more, as several of my hon. Friends have said, the Government have been trying to lift the burdens on business and on individuals wherever we can and to eliminate unnecessary central and local bureaucracy —
  Mr. O'Brien: Before the Minister pours further cold water on the Bill, will he continue to address his remarks to the future of the environment? No Opposition Member has suggested that environmental interests should not be safeguarded in the Bill. The Minister is turning his argument against the principle of the Bill to try to destroy it. If he and the Government are so keen on supporting it, why does he not say so, so that we can get on with the conclusion of its Second Reading?
  Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman is doing a good job of trying to make out, perhaps for the benefit of the television cameras, that there is a lot of support from his party. He should have said that no Labour Member is present and sat down.
  Mr. O'Brien: We want it in Committee.
  Mr. Spicer: I have not yet come to any conclusion. In my own time, I shall come to a conclusion, but I wish to make my speech in my own time. There is not much support on the Labour Benches, judging by today's debate. Except for this moment, when there are a few Labour Members present, the Labour Benches have been completely empty.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: In view of that intervention, will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that the Labour Government had an opportunity to enact the Dobry report? They decided not to. Perhaps that is the reason for the complete lack of support on the Labour Benches.
  Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is correct. As I recollect, Anthony Crosland turned down the recommendations of that report. He said that there might come a day when some of the recommendations might be enacted. He gave good reasons of bureaucracy and clogging up the entire planning system for turning the report down. My hon. Friend is right to say that it was a Labour Government who turned down that report. We are being given synthetic stuff from the other side. Only one Labour Member has spoken except the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), who spoke about Harrods.
  Mr. Don Dixon: We have not been waffling on like you.
  Mr. Spicer: I have only just started, so the hon. Gentleman has more to come.
  Mr. Forman: My hon. Friend was addressing the philosophical point of the rights of owners. Does he accept

  529
  that there is an important distinction between owner-occupiers who intend to redevelop their own property because they live there and want to redevelop for some perfectly understandable, beneficial reason and owners of property companies—rapacious owners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) referred to them —who involve themselves in demolition exercises simply to make a quick profit to the detriment of the local environment? Does he not see that important distinction?
  Mr. Spicer: I see the distinction that my hon. Friend makes. A point that I shall make in a moment is that we shall have to address the extent of wrongdoing—if that is the right way of putting it—by people such as my hon. Friend mentioned.
  The Government have tried to lift the burden on individuals and businesses and to eliminate unnecessary central and local government bureaucracy. I shall leave for a few moments my conclusions about the Bill, but one thing that cannot be denied is that it goes against the trend of deregulation and will increase the number of planning applications and appeals.
  The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) questioned what effect the Bill might have. The Bill would add to the number of planning applications and appeal procedures and to the burden on local planning authorities, many of which are heavily stretched. That is illustrated by recent figures, which show that fewer than 50 per cent. of planning consents are decided within eight weeks, compared to the target set by the Government of 80 per cent. within that period. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North called it an arthritic process, and there is some merit in describing it in that way.
  There can be little doubt that a requirement to give separate consideration to applications to demolish dwelling houses would make matters worse. Nor can I overlook the impact on the planning inspectorate. Last year, more than 28,600 planning appeals were made to the Department, an increase of 27 per cent. over the preceding year. The number of appeals has more than doubled since 1983. This is a problem of success, in that it is no doubt closely related to the buoyancy of the national economy, but that is small comfort to those who have to wait several months before receiving a decision on their appeal.
  Therefore, the Government have set out to reduce the burden of planning control where the type or scale of development does not warrant the need to make a planning application. For example, our reform of the Use Classes Order in 1987 has created a greater climate of certainty for commerce and enterprise. We have been prepared to maintain or increase the extent of control, in the interests of the environment and of local amenity, where there is solid evidence of widespread need for revision of controls.
  Although the Government's general stance has been to deregulate the planning system, we are ready to increase planning controls where that is justified, but the case for doing so must be based on hard evidence, not mere anecdote.
  My hon. Friends may ask what sort of evidence we need. It would be important for any Government to know whether the sort of problems my hon. Friends have described are widespread, or whether they are confined to outer London. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) said that there was plenty of evidence of demolition. I am sure that that is so but we
  530
  have to decide and we need more evidence about the extent of the undesirability of that demolition and of the practices associated with it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East referred to the case of Mr. and Mrs. Brian Williams of Elms road, Stanmore. There was an article about it in the February/March edition of Housing and Planning Review. The story and the allegations as told in that article make sorry reading. I understand that my hon. Friend has raised the case in the House on previous occasions. We must know the extent of harassment, vacancy, and unsatisfactory redevelopment and the destruction of interesting and beautiful houses before we can take a considered view of the subject.
  Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Spicer: I shall give way when I have finished this point. Demolition of itself is not wrong or evil. if for instance, it replaces the building with something better. Associated practices and the effect of the demolition may make it so unsatisfactory that we should prevent it.
  Mr. Jessel: My hon. Friend mentioned the destruction of beautiful houses. Does it not seem to him nonsense that a local planning authority can say, "We like the look of that tree so you may not cut it down", whereas, unless a building is listed or is in a conservation area, it cannot say, "We like the look of that house, it is a nice old house which adds to the quality of the area. You may not knock down that house"? Is that not nonsense, about which we should do something quickly?
  Mr. Spicer: That point was made earlier in the debate, but I do not believe there are any anomalies. There are listed houses and listed trees. There are also unlisted houses that cannot be demolished and other houses within conservation areas that cannot be demolished. The issue is whether we should greatly extend such controls.
  Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend will be aware that a tree in a conservation area cannot be lopped, topped, felled or otherwise uprooted without the permission of the local authority as a result of the Town and Country Amenities Act 1974, which I introduced. There is no similar protection, however, for a non-listed dwelling in a conservation area. Surely that is an anomaly.
  Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend will be aware that planning controls in conservation areas offer similar protection to that made available for listed properties and trees. I am sure that my hon. Friend is also aware, however, that such controls are restricted to conservation areas.
  It would be irresponsible to contemplate national legislation without having national information. The first, step, therefore, must be for the Government to invite evidence from local authority associations, professional planning, heritage and conservation bodies and from house builders. The Department has had scarcely any unsolicited comment from any of those bodies on this subject.
  Mr. Dykes: This comes from a Government who, we understand, introduced the community charge without universal evidence from up and down the country to demonstrate that it was a good idea. Be that as it may, I should emphasise that the Bill is not based on one esoteric, although horrifying, example in my constituency. I was thinking about this matter, along with many others, before

  531
  that disreputable incident when one semi-detached house in a pair was pulled down without any warning to the other dweller.
  This is a universal problem, albeit more common in the south than in the north. We need anticipatory action now before things get out of hand in the next property boom. That is why the Bill is universally supported—the Royal Town Planning Institute and other bodies have already expressed their unequivocal support.
  Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend believes that the problem is widespread and universal, but we need evidence to prove that. We simply have not had such evidence other than to prove that the problem occurs in isolated examples, such as that my hon. Friend mentioned.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I have with me today more than 50 letters from right hon. and hon. Members who represent all parts of the country and who believe that there is a problem. I received just one letter against my Bill.
  Mr. Spicer: I am in no doubt as to the importance of the debate, not only for airing the matter on the Floor of the House, but for enabling my hon. Friend to cite the examples and evidence that he has collected from colleagues who have not found it possible to take part in this debate.
  The Government have an open mind about the issue. On closer investigation we might find that the problem is a slight one and that no action is required. Alternatively, such investigation might reveal that there was a national problem, which required a national solution. However, until today we have received few representations.
  Another possibility is that the demolition of dwelling houses in the way in which my hon. Friends have described is confined to certain suburban areas and therefore invites a local solution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North made a reasonable point when he said that, apart from one other hon. Friend, all the other contributions were made by those representing London or its suburban areas. There is nothing wrong in my hon. Friends representing the interests of their constituents, but when we consider our response, we must be clear whether it is a local issue, which would merit a local solution, or a national problem that merits national action.
  Mr. Forman: My hon. Friend was right to suggest that a local solution to the problem might be required, but does he accept that, at present, local councils do not have sufficient powers available to them to impose an effective local solution to prevent such demolitions?
  Mr. Spicer: As I am about to deal with the Bill in detail, I hope that I shall be able to provide a direct answer to my hon. Friend.
  We believe that it is not just a matter of going into Committee to sort out the problem; issues of principle are involved that have to be properly debated on Second Reading. If one accepts that there is a problem, however, there are at least half a dozen ways in which to deal with it—at least five are alternatives to my hon Friend's Bill.
  I shall give five other ways in which the Government think that the problem could be addressed. One approach might be for local authorities to designate more conservation areas—this relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and was touched on
  532
  by my Friend the hon. Member for Fulham. The criterion for designating a conservation area appears in section 277 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. That states that such areas must be
  "of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance".
  I suspect that not all the residential areas which my hon. Friend's Bill seeks to protect would meet that criterion, although some may. Within a conservation area, demolition of a building requires conservation area consent.
  Mr. Shersby: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. However, he will recall my earlier remarks, and those of other colleagues, that many of the houses that are being affected by such demolition are not in conservation areas because they are not of architectural and historic interest. We are talking about ordinary houses in which people live and which form an important part of the townscape.
  Mr. Spicer: The point has been made during the debate that some of those areas may not be historic in the traditional sense, but nevertheless, because of their merits, they are nice places to live and should be preserved. One possibility would be to designate such areas, or parts of them, as conservation areas. I fully concede that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends might not want to press that option too hard for fear of diluting the concept of the conservation area. The Government may well not want to press local authorities to designate conservation areas merely to take advantage of control over demolition, especially as such designation would have further planning consequences.
  A second, perhaps more promising approach, would be some sort of local or special development area selected by the local authority, within which planning permission might be required before a dwelling house could be demolished. That would leave the basic development control system unchanged, but give greater freedom of action to local planning authorites. It would require legislation. We could undertake to consider such a suggestion if it became clear, on closer examination, that there were serious problems in well-defined localities.
  Mr. Wilkinson: This is a most important point. My right hon. and hon. Friends have simply said to the Minister that there are serious, interesting and important arguments such as those which he is adducing, but the proper place to advance them is in Committee, because the principle of this legislation is not in doubt. What are in doubt are the modalities of putting it into effect.
  Mr. Spicer: There is some question about the Bill's principles. That was why I started my speech by directly addressing the matter of principle. I do not want to fudge it. I said that views involving matters of principle were put forward which were different from those promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a principle involved in property ownership, which is a fundamental principle of our sort of society? Where people have properties, which are not listed and which are therefore their properties to do with as they will, and as it is quite likely that what goes up on the site

  533
  may be more attractive than what comes down, should we not mind our own business and leave people to decide for themselves what to do with their own property?
  Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend supports a view that I put forward at the beginning of my speech—that the Bill was strongly opposed on the basis of the rights of property. I made that point, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has underlined and underscored that principle.
  Mr. Dykes: Owners can be harassed out of their properties by ruthless property developers, sometimes with a financial bribe, and my hon. Friend does not mind that. If property owners change more than 10 per cent. of the property, they have to apply for official planning permission to make that change. Why is that anomaly allowed, whereby if a property is demolished, no permission is required but if an owner wants to change more than 10 per cent. of a property, he or she has to seek planning permission? That is absurd.
  Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend makes the point that there is widespread abuse and that the present system can have evil effects. I have maintained consistently throughout the debate that the Government are seeking concrete evidence of that, and I shall suggest how we propose to seek it. I am not arguing with my hon. Friend: he may be right. I am merely saying that, before we plunge into this legislation, even as a matter of principle, we must balance alternative principles against the one enshrined in this Bill.
  I am also suggesting that there are fundamentally different ways in which to approach the problem, should there he one. If we were to choose any of the approaches that I am suggesting, we would not put the Bill into Committee and tinker with it there; we should have a different Bill—or perhaps we should not need a Bill at all.
  Mr. Ground: Might the special areas that my hon. Friend has described include such designations as "buildings of townscape value", or categories of that sort, which local authorities have included in their plans, so as to provide a measure of protection outside conservation areas for buildings that are not statutorily listed?
  Mr. Spicer: In his interesting speech, my hon. and learned Friend raised the central issue that, when dealing with this matter, we shall have to think of new categories. He now adds the idea of localised special areas. If we followed that path, we would need planning guidance that involved new concepts of categorisation.
  This suggested route would require legislation different from that proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood. We could go along with such a suggestion if it became clear on close examination that there were serious problems within extremely well defined new categories of definition, and that such intermediate areas would not unnecessarily add severe complexity to the planning system. They would undoubtedly constitute another form of regulation, however, and we should have to consider them in that light.
  A third possible option would be a prior notification system. Developers would be requested to give local authorities notice of their intention to demolish and redevelop. Such a practice could be adopted in selected areas, including those in outer London where the demolition of dwelling houses seems to have caused mos. problems. Without legislation, the only sanction would be adverse publicity, but even such a move would give local
  534
  authorities the opportunity to say informally whether future development would be likely to receive planning permission. Those who support this Bill have not fully considered local authorities' sanctions on planning permission, should detrimental demolition take place.
  Mr. Carrington: The weakness of my hon. Friend's argument at the moment is that the developer would immediately appeal to the Department of the Environment, with a good prospect of overturning the local planning decision.
  Mr. Spicer: I understand that point, and the other point that has been made—that planning authorities may well find themselves under pressure once demolition has taken place and a nasty scar site is left. That notion, too, might require some legislative underpinning.
  Mr. O'Brien: What length of time has the Minister in mind for notice? If the time is protracted, it will blight the area and that means that there is no merit in prior notice. The Bill lays down specific times and gives clear guidance. Why do we need prior notice?
  Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman may have a point, but I should like to suggest some options. One could set down a time limit on notice in order to avoid procrastination and eliminate the problem of blight. I concede that no one can say how effective such an arrangement would he. No doubt the vast majority of developers who operate in a straightforward and responsible way already keep local planning authorities informed about their plans and would willingly comply with prior notice requests. However, more opportunistic developers might prefer to keep their plans under wraps and might care less about a bad press, if that was the only sanction that we had. That is one reason why legislation, if we decided to take that route, might be required.
  A fourth course of action is a code of practice. Such a code would require the endorsement of the Government, the local authority associations and the house-building industry. Although a code is an authoritative statement of practice, it offers guidance rather than imposing statutory requirements, so its provisions are not directly enforceable by legal proceedings. However, the existence of a code would be a powerful means of concentrating the minds of individual developers. Clearly, a code of practice would rely on co-operation, openness and good will between the parties in order to be fully effective, although, of course, it has not been unknown for codes of practice to be underpinned by legislation.
  A fifth option is to strengthen the Department's planning policy advice. A draft planning policy guidance note on housing, which we issued for consultation last year, already gives advice on demolition, redevelopment and housing densities. It includes a clear statement that demolition of existing property creates no presumption that permission will be granted for more intensive redevelopment. I can tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) that planning guidance has been issued about, for example, back development.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is replying to a debate in which all the hon. Members who have spoken support the Bill. The Minister has now been speaking for more than half an hour, and it is evident to some of us that he is stretching matters. I was about to use the word

  535
  "filibuster", but you would not like that. Standing Order No. 35 deals with the matter of the Question being now put. It says:
  "unless it shall appear to the chair that such motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question 'That the question be now put,' shall be put forthwith."
  No one has spoken against the Bill. The next Bill on today's agenda is about looking after people who are dying from cancer because they were in the vicinity of nuclear tests in the Pacific. It is promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay).
  The promoter of the present Bill has kindly suggested that the House should have a reasonable amount of time to discuss my hon. Friend's Bill. However, it is evident that the Minister is stretching things by dealing with matters that could be taken up in Committee. I now see that a couple of hon. Members have been brought in by the Government Whips in order to take up more time with speeches. I suggest that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should look carefully at Standing Order No. 35. Let us get the Minister down and move on to the next business, so that we can satisfy the demands of many hon. Members.
  Mrs. Gorman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some hon. Members who hold a minority view are waiting to speak on this matter. We are listening with great interest to the Minister before making our contribution, so that we do not duplicate what the Minister says.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am very much in the hands of the House, but even in the short time that I have been in the Chair, it has become evident to me from the list of prospective speakers that there is considerable interest in the Bill. Unless shorter speeches are made—I am not being critical of any particular right hon. or hon. Member—it will be exceedingly difficult for me to call all those who wish to speak before 2.30 pm.
  Mr. Spicer: Talking about people who have not been around—
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you not agree that it is a tradition of the House that right hon. and hon. Members wanting to participate in a debate attempt to be present in the Chamber for most of the debate? It is a matter of concern that hon. Members entering the Chamber long after the debate has started, who have not listened to any of the opening speeches, should now seek to catch your eye.
  Is not that clearly an abuse of the rules of the House and clear evidence that certain Conservative Members are determined to deny my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) the opportunity to present his Bill dealing with the serious subject of compensation for nuclear test veterans? I hope that you, Sir, will carefully consider which right hon. or hon. Members you call, and select only those who have been present in the Chamber for most of the debate.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Neither the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) nor the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has been present in the Chamber
  536
  for this morning's debate. I have, but those two hon Gentlemen would be unable to testify to that, because of their absence. A number of hon. Members who have made interventions, and I too hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in due course.
  Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and I have not attempted to catch your eye is because we are satisfied with the Bill now before the House and want to vote on the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North as well.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair takes into account the length of time that a right hon. or hon. Member has spent in the Chamber. It is clear from the information available to me that a large number of hon. Members who have been present throughout the debate have yet to participate in it. As I said, unless shorter speeches are made from now on, some hon. Members will inevitably be disappointed.
  Mr. Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if it would be to the convenience of the House, I intend, if the House gives me leave to do so, to sum up in three or five minutes the arguments that have been made. If my hon. Friend the Minister can bring his speech to an early conclusion, my right hon. and hon. Friends will be able to reach a decision as soon as possible.
  Mr. Spicer: I have not strayed off course for one moment, but have sought only to answer directly the points made in this extremely important debate. It sticks in my craw that Labour Members have largely been absent for the whole debate, other than the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), and the Labour Whip, who has been trying to make a bit of noise on the pretence that the Labour party is interested in the subject. Suddenly, a whole lot of Labour Members have entered the Chamber and started complaining that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends should not be allowed to speak, simply because they too have not attended the whole of the debate. That is quite wrong.
  The fifth option that I suggest is the strengthening of the Department's planning policy advice. We could add the advice that local and unitary development plans should include policies such that, where redevelopment would have an adverse effect on the character of a neighbourhood, planning permission could be refused on that ground, taking into account all other material considerations. We could suggest also that local plans make it clear that an applicant would not improve his case for redevelopment by creating a vacant site.
  We not only believe that matters of principle need to be tested against the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood quite properly and ably made, but that we must also consider a wide variety of alternative ways of addressing the problem. The Government believe that in so doing we must avoid unnecessary regulation.
  Mrs. Gorman: I listened with interest to my hon. Friend's five points. I am surprised that he did not mention insurance, particularly of semi-detached properties. The Government should suggest that people insure semidetached houses in such a way that, should half the house

  537
  be demolished, the owners of the other half can be heavily compensated. Will he consider the prospect of insurance as a means of coping with some of those identified problems?
  Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend raises an extremely interesting point, which we should consider seriously. That dimension has not been discussed so far.
  The Government aim throughout their planning policy to achieve a balance between the needs of development and those of the environment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North rightly said that there is continuing strong demand for housing, particularly in the south. He rightly said that that is not imported demand but results from changing social trends, such as the break-up of families and various other factors. We must balance those needs against those of the environment.
  We must also achieve a balance between the requirements to protect the green belt and the countryside and the need to avoid town cramming, to which Conservative members representing London constituencies have quite properly alluded.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood is understandably concerned to protect the suburban environment, which is typified by his constituency.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am sure that my hon. Friend will recall that in my speech I alluded to my previous experience in Bradford. This is as much an inner-city problem as an urban one. It is a nationwide problem.
  Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend may be right that this problem, which exists mainly in London suburbs, also exists in other suburbs and town centres. I do not deny that, but we need evidence of it. We must balance the objectives that he has put on behalf of those areas with the needs of the green belt and the other measures to protect the countryside, about which many of my right hon. and learned Friend's are concerned.
  The Government have said that they are considering bringing forward a planning Bill to tackle those objectives in a comprehensive and balanced way. I therefore say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood that we are not ready, even in principle, to accept the Bill. It is not just a question of details that can be ironed out in Committee.
  I have already said that we shall carefully consider my hon. Friend's arguments and any evidence that we find to support them. I can now go further and say that I propose that the Department should prepare a consultation paper, which would set out the issue and invite views on the scale of the problem nationwide. It would also seek comments on the various options that I have briefly described, including the option suggested in the Bill. Such a paper would be ready for issue by April, and we could invite responses by June.
  I can make no promises, but if the results of the consultation show that there is a severe and widespread problem, as discussed and defined in the debate, the Government would carefully consider the possibility of legislation.
  We are certainly looking for an early opportunity to legislate on a variety of planning issues. I say that, of course, without prejudice to the Queen's Speech in the forthcoming Session. I make that offer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood in a constructive and positive spirit and I hope that my hon. Friend will receive
  538
  it in that spirit. Meanwhile, for the reasons I have given, I must advise the House not to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  12.59 pm
  Mr. James Arbuthnot: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on his success in the ballot and on the witty and persuasive way in which he opened the debate. Perhaps my hon. Friend can explain whether one finds, when one is high on the ballot, that one's heart leaps for joy or sinks with feelings of grim dissatisfaction. I know that it involves a good deal of work and that my hon. Friend has put a good deal of work into the Bill.
  My hon. Friend referred to a surfeit of Government legislation. It might be fairer to recognise that there is too much of all legislation and that almost all legislation is a mistake. All too often we have to return with amendments to legislation the year after we have passed it and the year after that we have to produce amendments to the amendments. We must recognise that legislation in itself rarely makes things better, rarely makes people happier and can rarely be said to be a good thing. Any hon. Member who introduces legislation should be aware of the law of unintended consequences. In particular, if any new law is intended to produce A, it is likely to produce B. If it is intended to reduce an activity, it is likely to increase it. If it is intended to put a restriction on intelligent people, as the Bill is intended to do, they are likely to find some way, without too much difficulty, to get round it.
  I must confess to some regret that we have a ballot for private Members' legislation as opposed to a ballot for private Members' repeals. The productivity of hon. Members should be based not on the number of new laws that they introduce, but on the number of old laws that they get rid of. The presumption should he against giving powers that did not exist before either to central or local government. There are various reasons for that. Government as such is a necessary, though unpleasant, evil, and should be curbed wherever possible. In addition, changing the law causes confusion, uncertainty, expense and delay, and in the long run, as a result of the confusion, there is a disregard for the law in general. We change the law far too much and no political party has been very good at it.
  My next presumption is that we should be in favour of people having the liberty to do what they want without restriction. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) put it, with her usual vividness, the presumption should be against interferences in liberty. The Bill is an interference in the liberty to do what one wants with one's own property. However, we must recognise that all planning legislation is an interference in that liberty and that it was introduced with open eyes. People realised that it would be an interference, but they thought that it would be better to have such interference.
  The advantages of each interference in the liberty of the subject must be balanced carefully against the disadvantages, and, in my view, the benefits to be gained from such interference with people's freedoms should heavily outweigh the disadvantages.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Could not that point be argued just as effectively in Committee, so that those whose freedom has been interfered with by radioactivity poisoning could be satisfied that the House is considering

  539
  the awarding of proper and adquate compensation through the Radiation Exposed Crown Employees (Benefits) Bill? That Bill is due to be considered next, but the hon. Gentleman seems intent on talking it out.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I have not been thinking about the Bill that is to follow. If we reach it in time, that is fine, but I do not consider that the principle of freedom could appropriately be discussed in Committee. The details of the Bill can be discussed then, but the principle is sufficiently important to be discussed on the Floor of the House. If the hon. Gentleman does not agree with that, one wonders what he is doing in the House.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Gentleman has cast aspersions on my hon. Friend's feelings about freedom. Does the hon. Gentleman feel no loyalty to former service men who are dying of cancer as a result of being poisoned while carrying out their duties in Australia and elsewhere? Is he entirely happy for them and their widows to be deprived of their fair dos? He has plainly been set up as a stooge to talk the Bill out. Does not participating in such an exercise make him feel a little dirty?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I have heard Opposition Members muttering words such as "filibuster" during the past 20 minutes. I do not understand how the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) squares that with his attempt to drag such issues as Australia, service men and the next Bill on the Order Paper into our present debate. I am discussing the principle and the merit of this Bill, and I shall continue to do so. In my view, it curtails individual liberties and should not be passed.
  If we are to change the law to curtail freedoms, we must be sure of three things. First, we must be sure that a problem exists; secondly, we must be sure that the proposed solution is the best possible; thirdly, we must be sure that the solution is a significant improvement on the position that it is intended to cure. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood really believe that the man in the street would be happy for local authorities to be given the power that the Bill would confer on them? Perhaps we all have a similar image of planners: perhaps we all see them as faceless local government bureaucrats.
  Mr. Hanley: May I answer my hon. Friend's question to our hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)? Yesterday, the chief planning officer for Richmond upon Thames borough council—the excellent Mr. Ted Latham—told me that he welcomed the powers granted by the Bill, and that he was very glad that we were discussing such a measure.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I am sure that that is so, but it does not answer the question that I asked. I asked whether the man in the street would want Mr. Latham to be given those powers.
  I have received no letters in support of the Bill; moreover, although I spent nine years as a borough councillor, I have never received a request for the introduction of permission for the demolition of houses. If my hon. Friend's experience is different, I bow to it, but his constituency and mine are relatively similar, being in London but fairly suburban.
  Mr. Hanley: When I issued a press release stating that I was a supporter of an earlier version of the Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), I received a deluge of letters from people saying that that was exactly what I should be doing.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend has obviously had a different experience from mine.
  I want to consider the view of planners that I suspect most people share. We begin by thinking of planners as faceless local government bureaucrats. Then if a neighbour wants to erect an extension that overlooks our windows, we think of planners as potential saviours who do not have enough powers. Then if we want to put up an extension, the planners turn into petty-minded Hitlers who can only say no. At whatever stage in that process we may find ourselves, we do not believe that planners have produced a Britain that is generally more attractive.
  One of the main problems with the Bill is that it betrays a philosophy that planners and committees of local councillors know best despite the diversity, colour and excitement that can be provided by many separate decisions taken by different people. This country has some glorious architecture and some abysmal architecture. It also has everything in between. I believe that the diversity of our architecture constitutes the richness of our heritage and that diversity has rarely been improved or increased by town planners.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said that he hoped to introduce a measure that was fully in line with Government policy and philosophy. Is it likely that this Administration would want to add to planning restrictions instead of removing them? My hon. Friend was right to say that Conservatives are conservationists by nature. However, we want to preserve what is best and most worth while rather than turn mediocre buildings into museums.
  At the time of the greatest restrictions on planning, we did not have the planning restriction proposed in the Bill. There was nearly a change in the law in 1975 as a result of the Dobry report. I asked the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) why the Labour party has apparently changed its position about implementing the Dobry report. Answer, I am afraid, came there none. The hon. Gentleman simply talked about mining subsidence.
  We must consider the arguments in favour of the Bill espoused by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood. He suggested that the Bill was necessary because it would stop owners demolishing a house to prevent it being listed. However, powers already exist to deal with that problem, including spot-listing as happened with Kensington town hall.
  There are already extensive powers to control the demolition of buildings of intrinsic merit. The Bill must be aimed at buildings that are of less than intrinsic merit, and that point has been made clearly today. We could argue that spot-listing was of little use where local authorities or the Department of the Environment had no inkling of any intention to demolish. However, that is a relatively minor problem and does not happen very often. The Bill is too cumbersome an answer to that problem.
  The main argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood produced in favour of the Bill was that at the moment developers can buy a house with a garden and demolish the house, intending to encourage the local authority to give planning permission for higher

  541
  density building on that land and to include the garden. That is a difficult point to address and my hon. Friend and other hon. Members made it effectively.
  A Department of the Environment document entitled "Planning Policy Guidance No. 3" specifically covers that point in paragraph 17. It states:
  "The demolition of existing property does not in itself create any presumption that permission will be granted for more intensive redevelopment. Where the planning authority considers that existing densities in a particular area should not be exceeded, a statement to that effect in the local plan can help to deter the speculative demolition of sound housing."
  At this stage, any developer who tried to demolish a building before receiving planning permission to put up a new one would be taking an enormous risk. He would demolish a perfectly sound house without any certainty of being allowed even to put up the same house again, let alone another for higher density housing.
  As a limb of the argument, it may be said that if one house in a row of identical houses is demolished, it would break up the theme of the road. Several hon. Members made that point. One of my hon. Friends said that it would look like a gap in a row of teeth. Tha may be true of the Nash terraces in Bath, because their importance lies in the intrinsic beauty of the buildings, but, by and large, the same could not be said of modern council estates, where row upon row of relatively similar little houses can be some of the most depressing sights in the country.
  The hon. Member for Normanton said that there is evidence of the demolition of sound houses on a grand scale in London docklands. He did not seem to appreciate that special planning rules for London docklands were expressly granted to eliminate planning delays and to revive docklands. Those rules do not apply outside docklands. The special planning rules in docklands were astonishingly successful in the revival of docklands.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said also that one aim of the Bill is to bring into use land that is currently unused and neglected, rather than to build on green field sites. I am paraphrasing what my hon. Friend said. I apologise to him if I have got his words wrong.
  Mr. Wilkinson: It would be better if my hon. Friend stuck to the facts of what I said, and stuck to them briefly. I was merely quoting from the 1987 Conservative party manifesto.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend obviously believes that his Bill would achieve what he quoted from the Conservative party manifesto. I must disagree. The Bill would discourage the demolition of buildings, and thus force developers on to green field sites. It would produce precisely the opposite effect from the one that he intends.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr Dykes) suggested that, if the Bill is technically flawed, it could he amended in Committee and that that is what the Committee stage is for. I do not agree with my hon. Friend on that.
  I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood has much greater knowledge and experience of planning. My knowledge was gleaned on the planning committee of a local council. The Bill shows a misunderstanding of the planning system. A new development does not require planning permission, except in the sense that planning permission simply grants immunity from enforcement action. The Bill would require planning permission for demolition in a way that does not
  542
  apply to construction and development. The scheme of planning permission and the scheme of planning legislation do not make any allowance for such a restriction because of the prohibition—
  Mr. Bob Clay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that I have been in the Chamber all morning and that up to now I have not made any points or order or intervened. The last thing that I want to do is to hold up proceedings. However, as someone who is not a procedural expert, may I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) has now been speaking for 20 minutes, after many other long speeches, including one of 45 minutes from the Minister.
  I should like to put it to you and, through you, to some Conservative Members, that many people outside the House will not understand these parliamentary games and that the British ex-servicemen and their families who had enormous hopes of the Bill that is to follow this Bill will be appalled if the House fails to pass that Bill, and even more appalled if there is not even the opportunity to discuss it and to have something put on the record. I listened carefully to what you said in response to earlier points of order but I urge you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make whatever moves you can to help those who have come here today to listen to our discussions about a Bill to help people who are dying and who fear dying, who cannot wait another year, two years or 10 years for the legislation, and who should have an opportunity to be heard.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hereby forgo any rights which, by the leave of the House, I may have to reply to the debate and I beg to move, That the Question be now put—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not prepared to accept that motion.
  Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may recall that a week last Monday we discussed a business motion on various recommendations made by the Select Committee on Procedure relating to the procedures in the House. When I was making a speech that was shorter than that made today by the Minister, the Government Chief Whip moved the closure in the middle of my speech when several hon. Members who are now present, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who had been present throughout that debate, had indicated that they wanted to speak. On that occasion, the debate had run for only one hour although it had been undertaken for two hours on a previous occasion when I could not be present because I was in a Select Committee. I should have thought that that example provides a clear precedent because an hon. Member was on his feet, the closure motion was moved and it was accepted by the Chair. I hope that you will bear that in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not questioning the judgment of the Chair. Situations vary greatly in this matter, all that I can say is that the closure was requested and has been refused. I call Mr. Arbuthnot.
  Mr. Arbuthnot rose—
  Hon. Members: Stop filibustering.
  Mr. Roland Boyes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are you taking into consideration the fact that it is the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) who has moved the closure and has asked that the Question now be put? If the hon. Gentleman is honourable enough to give my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) at least the opportunity to speak to his Bill—although we hope that it will receive its Second Reading today—should you not take the fact that the hon. Gentleman has made that gesture into account when considering whether to accept a closure motion?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be very much better if we were to get on with the debate. Perhaps if we do so, we shall reach the second Bill on the Order Paper. I call Mr. Arbuthnot.
  Mr. Arbuthnot rose—
  Mr. Boyes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. From your long experience in the House, is it not absolutely clear that Conservative Members are trying to talk out the Bill? I do not doubt that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), who was speaking, will stay on his feet for a considerable time, which makes things extremely difficult for my hon. Friends, especially in view of the importance of the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North is seeking to propose. Many people have been affected by the nuclear tests and we are simply trying to give them adequate compensation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me.
  Mr. Boyes: Stop the filibustering, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and allow the closure as moved by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be wise if we were to get on with the debate. There is still over an hour to go. Points of order are only delaying matters and they are coming close to questioning the judgment of the Chair. I call Mr. Arbuthnot.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: The scheme of planning legislation—
  Mr. Rogers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am prepared to accept your ruling from the Chair. However, I wish that you would give the House a little clarification of the reason why you made that ruling. There are adequate—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has been here long enough to know that the Chair never gives reasons in this respect. I call Mr. Arbuthnot.
  Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, televison was brought into the Chamber by a majority vote for an experimental period. I wonder whether we should adjust our procedures in the light of that. Many millions of people are watching anxiously, waiting for the Radiation Exposed Crown Employees (Benefits) Bill to come before the House. That means that pressure is put on this place from outside to come to the second Bill, which would help people who are
  544
  seriously injured and dying. In those circumstances and in view of the majority vote for television, it might be a good idea to think again.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is my job not to consider television or anything else but to consider the order of the House. We are debating the first Bill set down for discussion today. That is the reality of the matter. I call Mr. Arbuthnot.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clearly, it would be wholly improper to question your judgment and discretion in matters of this nature. One of the tasks of the Chair is to protect Back Benchers from any abuse. As I understand it, one of the principles is that if a Bill has had a good run it is within the discretion of the Chair to accept a closure motion. As a matter of general principle, when the hon. Member promoting a Bill has decided that it is proper that a motion be made, is there not a case for saying that weight should be attached to that decision?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member started by saying that he did not question the judgment of the Chair. He went on to do just that. It would be wise to continue the debate. Points of order only delay matters. If we continue the debate there may be some time for the second Bill. I call Mr. Arbuthnot.
  Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Under Standing Order No. 35 of the rules of the House, the Chair has the power in certain circumstances to accept the motion, that the Question be now put. You know that as well as I do, and the Clerks and the other authorities of the House know it. That applies in debates and it can apply after only one hour. The Chair has to make a decision. It is based on the rights of the majority and of the minority. If you have talked to Mr. Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair earlier you will know that hon. Members who spoke in the initial part of the debate were all in favour of the Bill. They wanted to get rid of the Bill. The promoter of the Bill has waived his right to reply to the debate. Everybody was in favour and then suddenly a couple of hon. Members—supposedly the minority—came from nowhere to filibuster.
  You have a right to make sure that the procedures of the House under Standing Order No. 35 are carried out. Otherwise, people out there, especially the relatives of those who have died of cancer from serving in the Pacific and the ex-service men who are dying will wonder what is wrong with the procedures of the House of Commons. You have a duty to—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Skinner: I beg to move, That the Question be now put.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member and the whole House realise that attempts to bring pressure on the Chair are out of order.
  Mr. Rogers: Who has put on the pressure?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Such attempts can only be counterproductive. The Chair has a difficult job in exercising judgment in cases of this nature. I have exercised my judgment. We must now continue with the debate. I call Mr. Arbuthnot.
  Mr. John Marshall: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When we debated the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, a closure motion was not accepted until about 2.20 pm. On that occasion I believe that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did his best to frustrate any debate. It may be that some of my colleagues are learning from him.
  Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who arrived for this debate at about 1.15 pm, may I say with great respect for your functions and for the Chair, that the pressure exerted is against the will of the House, which wants to have a Division or to approve the Second Reading of the Bill? Virtually every speech in a long debate has been made in favour of the Bill. Even the Minister was understanding and accommodating about some aspects of it. Given that there is such an important Bill following, surely it is the will of the House that we should proceed to a decision.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall, of course, hear the points of order, but we cannot have a debate now on the way in which closure motions operate in the House. There is only an hour to go before 2.30 pm and we are cutting into valuable private Members' time by prolonging the points of order.
  Mr. Hanley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be quite wrong for the comments of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about those who have spoken in this debate having only recently come into the Chamber to go on record. Everyone who has spoken for or against the Bill has been here since the beginning of the day.
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In exercising your discretion, which must, of course, always be a matter for the Chair on a Friday, there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who may well have cancelled constituency engagements in the hope of being present for the second Bill on the Order Paper. I hope that you will take this into account when making your decision.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Boyes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appeal to you to reconsider your decision. In a place that we cannot mention there are a number of service men and ex-service men who have a great interest in what is happening in the Chamber today. They must wonder what the hell is going on. We have an important Bill that is vital to soldiers, to their wives and to other people. Those soldiers served their country—among my papers I have a list of people who have died or suffered as a result of such service—and they must wonder why it is that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot anticipate a debate that will arise if we reach the second Bill on the Order Paper. We must now continue with the debate on the first Bill. I call Mr. Arbuthnot.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Reverting once again to planning legislation, the scheme of planning legislation does not make any allowance for a restriction on demolition as the prohibition on demolishing listed buildings is possible only
  546
  because of the much more detailed control otherwise exercised over listed buildings than is exercised over other buildings.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Be a man and wind up.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I have already said that I believe that the Bill is likely to be ineffective because a developer might well apply for permission to demolish a house to build a single unit, which would be granted almost automatically. He would demolish the existing house without building the new one and would then immediately apply to build what he wanted to build in the first place. If we come to that scenario, the Bill will have got us nowhere. It is wide open to abuse.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) suggested that a council should be given permission to take over land that has been derelict for a long time. As a rule, councils do not have a good record on dealing with their properties and such powers would not deal with my central point—the intelligent manipulation of the system by developers. We would be likely to see an increased number of applications to demolish buildings as well as bogus applications to develop buildings. 'That combination would ensure that the entire planning system ground to a halt with the obvious damage consequent upon that. What would be the consequences of an overloaded system such as would be created? Councils would not be able to keep up, developers would therefore have to go on appeal to the Department of the Environment—
  Mr. John McWilliam: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When you assumed the Chair this afternoon I distinctly heard you admonish hon. Members to keep their speeches brief and to the point. It seems that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) is deliberately disobeying you. I merely draw the matter to your attention.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no power at present to limit speeches, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) will bear it in mind that there are hon. Members who wish to speak.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Arbuthnot: The only effect of more appeals—
  Mr. Boyes rose—
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot do so too often because of the number of points that are being made by Opposition Members.
  Mr. Boyes: Will the hon. Gentleman consider what the next Bill means, and end his speech so that people can hear the case for the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) wishes to introduce? I appeal to the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodforcl (Mr. Arbuthnot)—I do not usually appeal to Conservative Members—because I am concerned about the people who are suffering and need compensation, and want to take this chance of getting them that money. The hon. Gentleman is the only Member to have spoken against the Bill in this morning's debate. Therefore, I ask him to sit down now so that the closure motion may he put.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman may appreciate that I am not in a position to comment on the next Bill. My speech would have been considerably shorter if there had been fewer interruptions.
  The only effect of the Bill would be bureaucracy, delay, forms, regulations and more civil servants. The Bill contains no suggestion for extra finance to produce those extra civil servants, forms and bureaucracy. No money would be available to local authorities to pay for the extra work that they had to do. No money could be introduced because this is a private Member's Bill.
  Over the past few weeks probably all hon. Members have received representations from constituents who are local councillors to say that the Government keep shovelling duties on local government without providing extra money to perform those duties. That argument could certainly be applied to the Bill.
  It is presumably intended that all the panoply of the appeals procedure to the Secretary of State, with public inquiries and everything else, should accompany this change. One point has not been sufficiently well made: the Bill does not change the planning grounds that would apply to developers. It would follow from existing planning guidelines that, if a person applied to demolish a house that was not listed, the planning authority would have to grant it or the Department of the Environment would have to allow an appeal. Therefore, I do not understand how the Bill would achieve its desired effect.
  The Bill applies not only to any building that is a dwelling house, but to any building that has been used as a dwelling house. What does that mean? Does it mean, "has ever been used as a dwelling house"? How on earth is anybody supposed to know what has been used as a dwelling house?
  Mr. Rogers rose—
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I shall not give way because so many points have been made about my taking too long.
  If the principle of the Bill is correct, it should not be restricted to dwelling houses, but widened to cover the scope of buildings such as the Hoover building and Kensington town hall. I do not believe that the wrong decision was made about Kensington town hall. I declare an interest because I was a councillor in the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea and was consulted about, and fully in support of, the decision to pre-empt a political decision made by the Greater London Council to list Kensington town hall, a building of no merit.
  Would it become a matter for sanction if a house, rather than being demolished, was simply allowed to decay and fall down? That would have to follow from the principle behind the Bill. Perhaps a house could be encouraged, surreptitiously or otherwise, to fall down. That would certainly begin to happen. There would be explosions at dead of night and houses would suddenly collapse. The owner would say, "Well, honest, it wasn't me." But we could not believe him.
  What will happen if part of a house is pulled down? What if it is pulled down room by room? I stand to be corrected if I am wrong—many hon. Members have more knowledge of this than I do—but I believe that a building, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, includes part of a building, with the absurd result that any tiny
  548
  change in a house would constitute its demolition. Taking that to extremes, one could suggest that the removal of a tap would amount to the demolition of a building.
  I should find it very hard to support the Bill. I, too, represent a London surburban constituency, and my constituents have serious anxieties about planning—more directed towards what goes up than towards what comes down, however. They complain to me that people put up buildings without planning permission and then feel entitled to apply for retrospective permission. They complain about the permitted development in my constituency. They complain that people may build in the most insensitive way merely because they are increasing their property by less than 10 per cent. They complain not about permitted demolition, but about the number of appeals to the Department of the Environment—
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that you appealed for brief speeches at the beginning of the debate. Have you taken account of the fact that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to one of the Defence Ministers, who is very keen to stop the next debate? No Defence Minister has come in for the next debate. I suggest that it would be reasonable for you to appeal to the hon. Gentleman to make a brief speech, and if he persists in filibustering I hope that you will take that into account if the closure is moved soon.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has no power at this stage to limit speeches, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) will take into account the fact that other hon. Members want to speak.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unfounded and grossly unfair allegations have been made against my hon. Friend. Will you confirm that the next debate would be answered by a social security Minister, who has been listening to the debate and who knows the situation rather better than some Opposition Members who have not been in the Chamber?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate, not a point of order.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I should have finished by now if the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) had not intervened.
  The number of appeals being granted by the Department of the Environment causes concern. Such matters are and should be addressed by the Secretary of State for the Environment in the planning Bill in the next Session of Parliament. The matters that I have discussed are what cause anxiety, not the matters dealt with in the Bill, which is why I cannot support it.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I respectfully beg to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Boyes(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not hear any Noes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have put the Question, and I heard Ayes and Noes. We are now proceeding to a Division.
  The House having divided: Ayes 81, Noes 3.

  Division No. 100]

  [1.42 pm

  AYES

  Anderson, Donald

  Lamond, James

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Atkinson, David

  Livingstone, Ken

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Battle, John

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

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

  McWilliam, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Boyes, Roland

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Mullin, Chris

  Carrington, Matthew

  O'Brien, William

  Clay, Bob

  O'Neill, Martin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Cousins, Jim

  Prescott, John

  Crowther, Stan

  Redmond, Martin

  Cummings, John

  Richardson, Jo

  Dixon, Don

  Rogers, Allan

  Dobson, Frank

  Ruddock, Joan

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Shersby, Michael

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Short, Clare

  Forman, Nigel

  Skinner, Dennis

  French, Douglas

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Strang, Gavin

  Haynes, Frank

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Waller, Gary

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Watts, John

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Irvine, Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Mr. John Wilkinson and Mr. Jeremy Hanley.

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  NOES

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Janman, Tim

  Mr. John Marshall and Mr. Edward Leigh.

  Summerson, Hugo

  Whereupon MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 ( Majority for Closure).
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  1.53 pm
  Mr. Hugo Summerson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on drawing the number that he did in the ballot, and on the way in which he introduced his measure. However, I have serious reservations about my hon. Friend's Bill. I shall begin by going back in time and examining the way in which a human settlement develops over the centuries.
  I take as an example Southwark, on the south bank of the Thames. One can find evidence of a settlement there
  550
  going back 2,000 years. The Romans used the same area for further building, and throughout the dark ages, the Norman conquest and mediaeval times—
  Mr. John Battle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify something for me? We have voted on the closure. Hon. Members who did not want the debate to continue voted for the closure. The other option was to vote for the debate to be continued. Is it in order for an hon. Member who did not vote for the debate to be continued to continue it after the vote has taken place?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: What is happening is perfectly in order. Perhaps it would be helpful if I reminded the House that for a closure motion to be carried, 100 hon. Members must vote for it, but 100 hon. Members did not vote for it, so it was decided in the negative. It follows automatically that the House, not the Chair, has decided that the debate should continue. What is happening is in order.
  Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that, in these troubled times of hon. Members not declaring their interests, hon. Members will debate next week the important issue of an hon. Member failing to declare interests of about £80,000. Would you think it advisable, in a debate that would have dealt with those seeking compensation from the state—the widows of those who have died from cancer and those who are currently suffering from it—for a member of Lloyd's involved in the insurance market, who might well not be very keen on the state giving handouts, to declare his interest before making filibustering speeches against the Bill?
  Will you examine the record to see whether the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) or any other hon. Member who has taken part in the debate, has declared his interest? There is no doubt that, if the state pays compensation, there will be less of a market for those in Lloyd's. I think that that needs examining.
  Mr. Rogers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) began his speech I did not hear him declare his interests—and neither did you, because I do not think that he did so. As I understand it, under the rules of the House, hon. Members are asked to declare their interests in the Register of Members' Interests and in debates. One Conservative Member has been investigated as a result of his breaching that Standing Order. The hon. Member for Walthamstow is speaking in a debate on property, property values and planning permission. He is a director of a property company and a chartered surveyor. I submit that he is in breach of the rules of the House and that you should bring him to order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House knows well that hon. Members who have an interest should declare it in debate. That is well known in the House, and I am sure that every hon. Member will observe it. If any hon. Member believes that there has been a breach of that strong convention, the correct procedure is to write to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests.
  Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that if sufficient

  551
  Labour Members had bothered to attend today we would not have had all these points of order because they would have been able to carry the closure motion.
  Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall speak very honestly. What is making me sick this afternoon is that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) was born in 1952 and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) was born in 1950. The people in a place that we cannot mention fought, and many died, so that people like those two hon. Gentlemen could come into this Chamber in a free democracy. Now they are taking advantage—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking from the Front Bench and the Chair expects him to set a good example. His point is a perfectly legitimate point of debate, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. I call Mr. Summerson.
  Mr. Summerson: I must defend myself against what has been said about declaring my interests. I see that in the third paragraph of my notes, I have put in brackets, "state CS". I was coming on to the fact—[Interruption.] Perhaps I should have declared my interest in my opening words but, as I understand the rules of the House—I am open to correction—
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not an expert on procedure. Some of the rules of the House baffle me and I find some irrelevant. However, we call each other hon. Members when addressing each other in debate. Is it honourable for an hon. Member who has been speaking for five minutes to say cynically, after it has been pointed out to him that he is in breach of the rules of the House, that a declaration of interest was in his notes?
  I came here specially, on the very early train today, to represent a constituent, Clifford Hutchinson, who is an honourable man. He was on Christmas Island and now, every day of his life, is in pain—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must not anticipate the next debate. The hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Ken Livingstone rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
  In this House, we are all hon. Members. Every hon. Member knows very well that the strong conventions are that if there is a direct interest in the subject under discussion, the hon. Member concerned must declare his interest. That is well known.
  Mr. Livingstone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) said that he was about to make a statement referring to the initials "CS". Does that stand for "crooked swindler"?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Summerson: As I understand the rules of the House, hon. Members have to declare an interest. However, the rules do not state where in the course of his remarks an hon. Member is supposed to state that interest
  552
  —[Interruption.] If the House will give me the opportunity, I shall eventually come on to the part of my speech in which I declare that interest.
  I was talking about the history of sites of human settlement—
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was pointed out to you a short time ago that hon. Members are supposed to declare their interests in a speech. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) announced that he was about to declare his interest, but he has veered away from the subject again. May I ask him through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if he will now state exactly and explicitly what interests he has in insurance, property, banking or anything else which might have a bearing on the Bill—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) is free to make his own speech in his own way.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not in accordance with your ruling a few minutes ago and with the conventions of the House generally that an hon. Member who has to declare an interest should do so at the beginning of his speech so that hon. Members can judge what he is saying? Surely, if an hon. Member decided that he was not going to declare his interest until the end of his speech, much of that provision would be made void. I hope that you will urge the hon. Gentleman to make the declaration of interest which he said he was going to make, but which so far he has not made.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have the strong impression that the hon. Member for Walthamstow is about to clarify the position. I appeal to the House to exercise the sense of fairness that has always prevailed here, and allow him to do so.
  Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will not take another point of order until the hon. Member for Walthamstow has clarified the position.
  Mr. Summerson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will certainly bow to your ruling and state that I am a chartered surveyor and also the director of a property company, from which I have drawn no remuneration since June 1987.
  Mr. Livingstone: Which company?
  Mr. Summerson: It is called Palatine Properties Ltd., and the hon. Gentleman can go to Companies house and look it up whenever he chooses.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Member for Palatine Properties give way?
  Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not usually a reader of "Erskine May", but I have studied its ruling on this subject. On page 385, under the heading "Declaration of interests in debate", it is explicitly stated:
  "A Member will normally declare his interest at the beginning of his remarks."
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the hon. Member concerned to decide what is the appropriate moment for him to declare his interest. The passage that the hon. Gentleman has just quoted uses the word "normally"; the hon. Member for Walthamstow is a fairly new Member, and we all have to absorb experience. In any event, the hon. Member for Walthamstow has now clarified the position, and I feel that the House should accept that and allow him to get on with his speech.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) may at some stage have obeyed the advice in "Erskine May". Am I right in thinking, however, that an earlier speaker in this important debate failed to declare an interest? If so, would it be in order for him to repair the apparent omission, if he is present or returns to the Chamber?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I dealt with that earlier; perhaps the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was not in the Chamber at the time. If any hon. Member considers that there has been a breach of the conventions, customs and guidance contained in "Erskine May", his proper course is to take the matter up with the hon. Member concerned and/or the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is true that I own a flat in the basement of my house, but I do not intend to demolish my house.
  Mr. John P. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I too am a relatively new Member; I also happen to be an ex-service man. Is it in order for me to ask Conservative Members, through you, to refrain from their present disgraceful activity and stop filibustering? We should then have a chance, even at this late hour, of proceeding with a Bill that the people of this country want us to debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: My job is to ensure that the rules of order are observed. They are being observed, and the hon. Member for Walthamstow is in order.
  Mr. Summerson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the record will show that I have so far managed to get through about one twentieth of my speech, as I have to go back to the beginning every time I am interrupted.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek clarification of your most recent ruling on whether interests have been declared? Surely, as this is a Standing Order, it is a matter for you or Mr. Speaker and not for the adjudication of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair cannot possibly be a judge in this matter. That is one of the reasons why we have a Select Committee on Members' Interests. If any hon. Member—I have repeated this on several occasions already—feels that there has been a breach, he should put a case to the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which will of course examine the matter carefully and, if appropriate, report in due course to the House.
  Mr. Boyes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I read out the relevant sentence from page 385 of "Erskine May", you stressed the word "normally".
  554
  Your interpretation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, seems to mean that a declaration can be made at any time during an hon. Member's speech. If "normally" can be interpreted as any time between zero and half an hour before an interest is declared, should that not be referred to Mr. Speaker, and from him to the appropriate Select Committee, for clarification and further definition of the word "normally"? I am only asking—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It is primarily for the hon. Member concerned to judge whether he has an interest to declare and, if so, when to declare it. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the rules need changing in any way, it is not for the Chair to change them. The Chair is the servant of the House. As I have said more than once, the hon. Gentleman should write to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests and ask him to consider the matter.
  Mr. Summerson: In the light of what has been said, must also declare that I am the chairman of an insurance broking company. Since I took over the chairmanship of that company, I have drawn no remuneration from it.
  If I may now continue with my speech—
  Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) has declared an interest in Palatine Properties Ltd. and in an insurance company, and he has told the House that he has received no income from them since he was elected to the House in 1987. I do not want to accuse the hon Gentleman of misleading the House, but he should explain the capital value of Palatine Properties Ltd. and what interest that company has in demolition—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those are matters for debate, not points of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Summerson: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am happy to tell the hon. Member for Islington. North (Mr. Corbyn) all about Palatine Properties. As its sole assets, that company has the freehold of six blocks of flats in Fulham. All the flats have been sold on long leases, and they produce an income by way of ground rent of £1,250 a year. The leases expire some time well into the next century.
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman will be going around with a hat in a minute.
  Mr. Summerson: I am not sure whether my bank manager will be very happy with me baring the company's soul in public this way. The company has an overdraft of about £15,000 or £16,000. When we bought the freehold of the properties in December 1986, we paid £9,600 for them. Perhaps Opposition Members will now understand why I draw no income from the company and also why my bank manager frequently has nightmares.
  Mr. Corbyn: This is fascinating, and reveals the depth of the hon. Gentleman's interest in high finance. However, he has not told us about the increased capital value of the blocks of flats since they were bought out or what interest he has in the demolition of those properties and how much he would stand to gain as the owner of the freehold should they be demolished.
  Mr. Summerson: I can answer the hon. Gentleman very easily. The freeholders do not have the right to knock

  555
  down the blocks. All the flats have been sold on long leases and I imagine that the leases probably begin to expire around 2070, when I do not expect to be around.
  Mr. Michael Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree—
  Mr. Cryer: Where has the hon. Gentleman been all morning?
  Mr. Stern: I have been listening to the debate.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that the value of the reversion, about which Opposition Members are so jealous, is probably less than the original purchase price?
  Mr. Summerson: In the present market, that is probably so. That is why, as I have already explained, I have taken no remuneration from the company.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not in the least interested in the hon. Gentleman's property interests—I am well aware that many Conservative Members are more representative of property interests than of their constituents—but is it not the case that, if the hon. Gentleman were to sit down and if other hon. Members were to remain seated, we could make progress on the Radiation Exposed Crown Employees (Benefits) Bill? That Bill concerns the health of ex-service men—people who have served this country well in the past. Is it not morally correct for Conservative Members to pass the Planning Permission (Demolition of Houses) Bill so that we may debate the next Bill?
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That must be a matter for the hon. Member who has the floor. I call Mr. Summerson.
  Mr. Summerson: The Bill has strong implications for housing and for housing the homeless. That is an important matter. My hon. Friends who cheered the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) have already had their say. I arrived in the Chamber at half past 9 this morning. I put my name into Mr. Speaker's Office last night. I have prepared my speech, and I intend to deliver it.
  Mr. Dykes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Summerson: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend.
  I dislike this addition to planning law. Section 22(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 gives the famous definition of development:
  "the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land."
  It is quite clear that those who drew up the legislation had in mind positive building activities. They did not envisage demolition coming within that definition of development.
  I was going to declare my interest as a chartered surveyor and so on, but I have already done so at inordinate length. When I practised as a chartered surveyor, I gained some experience of planning matters. It was quite clear that many local authorities—the political complexion did not matter—had a fundamental opposition to people who wanted to carry out developments. I would often find that, although planning officers were
  556
  perfectly constructive and helpful, when a matter got to the planning committee, at the least whiff of opposition from local people, the planning committee would turn tail and run. That was an abrogation of responsibility.
  Now, of course, I understand that the committee members were worried about local opposition, and possibly opposition to their seats on the council, but they were given a duty to deal with planning applications. Many planning applications were ultimately for the benefit of their area.
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman's last comment is unfair to members of local authorities who serve on planning committees. Many councillors are fully aware of the circumstances in their wards. If they wish to use their experience, is it not right that they should oppose planning officers to defend the interests of the people they serve? Why does the hon. Gentleman deride members of local authorities in such a way?
  Mr. Summerson: The hon. Gentleman is not being altogether fair. I never derided those councillors—I said that they should have a sharper sense of their own responsibilities. Simply because some people in their area might not like the idea of a development, councillors often say, "Oh well, we won't bother to pass it; we'll oppose it. We know perfectly well that the developers will get it on appeal. We also know perfectly well that the development is probably in the best interests of the area." Because of the local opposition, councillors are often not prepared to deal with these issues. That was my complaint.
  Planning law is directly responsible for driving up property prices all over the country because it restricts the supply of land. That is the reason we have seen the rise of the pressure group SANE Planning, in this very place. It exists to protect the green belt and the countryside. I am sure that most people would agree with that. However, that process can be taken too far. If the supply of land is restricted, the price of that land will obviously increase. Therefore, the price of the buildings on that land will also increase. In turn, prices are driven up all over the country and young people, often setting out on their first job, cannot find anywhere to live.
  That problem is not confined to country areas; the position is exactly the same in the towns and cities. For that very reason, property prices in my own constituency of Walthamstow have been driven up and up over the past 10 or 15 years and young people are finding that they cannot afford too buy. Those who were fortunate enough or clever enough not to buy at the height of the boom now have good opportunities and many are taking advantage of them. If we regard what is happening now as part of the cyclical downturn, to be followed at some time by the cyclical upturn, once again many young people will not be able to afford to buy a home.
  Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend's earlier comments about his property company sounded interesting, although perhaps it is not a particularly attractive investment. I have been having discussions with some of my hon. Friends. The worrying aspect of all this is whether, under the latest company laws, my hon. Friend is presiding over a property company that is insolvent or approaching insolvency. If so, as hon. Friends of our hon. Friend, we are all concerned about our hon. Friend's political welfare and, of course, we want to avoid a by-election. Perhaps my hon. Friend could give us some clarification.
  Mr. Summerson: I wondered whether any of my colleagues would pick up that point. On the face of it, it sounds as though what my hon. Friend has said is the case. However, I can assure him that the present valuation of the properties and the present state of the overdraft are just about in step. As long as the income from the property continues to be paid to the bank and does not come into my pocket, all will be well.
  Some of my hon. Friends have referred to the trouble in suburban areas, and I can fully understand their worries. However, we must bear in mind the fact that many of those suburban areas were developed in the 1920s and the 1930s on a spacious scale, when the demand for housing was very different and much less than it is today. We should also think about how those who were already living on the urban fringe must have been furious when a developer arrived on the scene and said, "I am going to build further out and spoil your view." To a large extent, what lies at the root of the problem is that people do not like having their areas "despoiled" as they would see it, which I can fully understand. However, they should understand that those houses were built all those years ago for a completely different life style and many must now make way for others, for the different life style of today.
  That point goes back to what I said at the beginning about the history of human settlements in various places. Settlements and people's requirements change over the years. Many large Victorian houses, for example, have now been turned into flats. Local people are happy to see, at least from the outside, the house look exactly as it has always looked. Often the quality of the accommodation inside is not particularly high, because the houses were never designed to be turned into flats. As a result, problems arise—for example, of sound transmission through the walls or floors. That gives rise to considerable problems.
  Some larger and older houses have outrun their span. They were put up for a particular purpose and have fulfilled that purpose well. But the demand today, particularly with the younger population, is not so much for large houses as for smaller flats, so much denigrated by both Conservative and Opposition Members. Young people have to start somewhere, and they want smaller flats. They want to know that their flats are solidly built. They do not want to be in intimate contact with their neighbours through listening willy-nilly to what their neighbours are up to on the other side of the wall.
  If the Bill becomes law, there would be more deliberate neglect of properties. An unscrupulous developer may not wish to go through all the hassle of applying for planning permission. After doing his homework, he may find that the local council and residents are hostile to the plans. He may simply buy a house and deliberately neglect it. He may leave it open and empty.
  The next thing that will probably happen is that squatters will come in. After that, there will probably be a fire or something of that nature. The owner will then be able to knock that house down without having to put any effort into the house. He may simply decide to take the roof off and let natural deterioration take its toll, to such an extent that the house must be demolished.
  Do we really want to freeze all our houses in a time warp? That is the problem with the Bill. I understand what
  558
  my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood is getting at—the anxieties of his constituents who support the Bill.
  Mr. Clay: Does the hon. Gentleman feel easy with the fact that the Government will not have to say even a word in opposition to the Bill which will follow this one Frankly, they do not have a word or an argument to put forward. That is why they have put up people such as the hon. Member for Walthhamstow (Mr. Summerson) to talk to this Bill. Does he really feel comfortable with that? I ask him on the record whether he understands the feelings of the service men and their families who would be affected by the Bill that is to follow?
  Mr. Summerson: I came to the House today to contribute to the debate. That is what I am doing. The hon. Gentleman may complain bitterly about me arid my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), who spoke before me. Why did he not start to complain from 9.30 am onwards about other hon. Gentlemen who spoke?
  Mr. Wilkinson: Because we made short speeches.
  Mr. Summerson: My hon. Friend talks about short speeches. I began my speech at 2 pm, but I have had precious little time to deliver my remarks, with all the interruptions and interventions and points of order.
  Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that at least half his speech was full of interruptions and filibustering from Labour Members? Labour Members have prevented the second Bill from being debated this morning.
  Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be wise to put on the record that the reason why there were so many interruptions in the hon. Gentleman's speech was his failure to declare his interest in his opening sentence?
  Mr. Summerson: The hon. Gentleman's remark is open to question. I declared my interest, as the House demands. As far as I was aware, I had to declare it in the course of my speech, and I have done so.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate that we have not had time to hear from hon. Members who represent areas outside London who could have spoken about the severe difficulties faced by our constituents when trying to buy property in London. If they were successful, that would do a great deal to increase mobility of labour and reduce unemployment in the north. It is a great pity that we have not heard from hon. Members representing areas other than London.
  Mr. Summerson: My hon. Friend is right and, in common with me, he has been here since 9.30 am. He has sat through the entire debate and I am afraid that he has not had the chance to make his own speech.
  Mr. Boyes: I have just been outside to Central Lobby to talk to the nuclear veterans. They are disgusted at the performance of Conservative Members and find it an absolute disgrace. All those who have filibustered today should be ashamed of themselves.
  Mr. Summerson: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but I have done no such thing. I have been on my feet for perhaps half an hour and—
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  To be resumed on Friday 9 March.

Private Members' Bills

  RADIATION EXPOSED CROWN EMPLOYEES (BENEFITS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Bob Clay: Friday 9 March, because the Government Whip objected.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 March.

  CAR TELEPHONES (SAFETY) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 March.

  MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Friday 6 July. Again, that is the responsibility of the Government.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 July.

  HARBOURS, DOCKS AND PIERS CLAUSES ACT 1847 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 April.

  PROTECTION OF BADGER SETTS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Tony Banks: Friday 9 March. On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must complete the orders.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 March.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL ACT 1987 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: As the Government Whip objected, then Friday 23 March.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 March.

  ACCESS TO HEALTH RECORDS BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [23 February].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 March.

  GREYHOUND BETTING LEVY BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [16 February].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 March.

  FOOTBALL SPECTATORS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 March.

  REGISTRATION OF COMMERCIAL LOBBYING INTERESTS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 March.

  BRITISH RACING COMMISSION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 March.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Monday 12th March, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Brooke relating to Northern Ireland may be proceeded with until Seven o'clock, and at that hour, if proceedings thereon have not been previously disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall put the Question thereon. —[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  2.32 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I moved the Access to Health Records Bill on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), I believe that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) objected. Perhaps you could inquire of him whether he is aware that his Government have said that they support the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We cannot debate the matter now.
  Mr. Harry Cohen; On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I actually missed the vote—like the nuclear test veterans, I had the door slammed in my face. I was addressing a meeting on behalf of another hon. Member and I got the first train back to the House. I was ambling along from the station to the House and I was not notified that there was a Division until it was much too late. Although I ran, I had the door slammed in my face. Will you consider some sort of mechanism for a bell or similar system to operate in all the precincts of the House so that fit hon. Members, like myself, can run and cast our vote in a Division instead of missing it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I doubt whether the bells are defective, but I will certainly inquire into the matter.
  Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I moved the Second Reading of the Protection of Badger Setts Bill I certainly did not hear anyone on the Government Treasury Bench object. I understand that this act of private enterprise against his own Government was the effort of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot). I wanted to ensure that I did not get the name wrong because I do not want the mail to go to the wrong person subsequently.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Bill was objected to and we carried out the normal procedures.

Whaling
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
2.34 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: The subject of whaling arouses great passion and anger both in the House and outside, and I am as prone to such feelings as anyone else. On this occasion, uniquely in all the times that I have spoken in the House, my anger is directed not at Her Majesty's Government but at the Japanese Government and, to a lesser extent, the Norwegian Government.
Whales are probably the most remarkable creatures living on earth. They evoke great awe and fascination among the vast majority of us. They belong to a unique class of marine mammals which have lived on earth much longer than we have—50 million years.
The blue whale is the largest creature ever to have lived on the planet—far greater than even the largest of the dinosaurs. The brain of the sperm whale is the largest of any creature on earth. Toothed whales use a form of sonar for echo location, which is up to 95 per cent. more accurate than the most sophisticated sonar developed by humans.
Despite its huge size of some of the 80 species of whale, dolphin and porpoise, whales appear to have gentle natures with little natural aggression and a tendency to enjoy play. They are intelligent creatures. In addition to having highly developed brains, there is clear evidence that they communicate through a complex system of sounds. Anyone who has listened to the song of the hump-back whale, with its weaving of those intricate and evolving patterns of music, knows just how wonderful and evocative it is.
Studies reveal complex social behaviour and gregariousness among whales. A school of whales will protect its young and wounded—a tendency which has been used by professional whalers in the past to increase their kill. They exploit the kindness of the whales and thus accentuate the barbarity of man against them. In some species, a calfless female will assist a mother in caring for her calf. In short, whales are beautiful, intelligent, social, caring, gentle and mysterious creatures.
What do we do with these wonderful creatures? We slaughter them. All whaling is unacceptable and barbaric. The slaughter of whales is an evil crime—as evil as genocide. Over recent years world opinion has, fortunately, vastly reduced the killing of whales, but not before many species approached extinction.
In 1982, the International Whaling Commission, the IWC, passed an indefinite ban on commercial whaling, effective from 1986. My reason for raising this issue now —apart from the fact that it is a matter of continuing concern for me and for colleagues on both sides of the House and throughout the country—is that this year, I believe in June, the IWC is to review its original decision and decide whether to lift the ban on certain stocks or leave it entirely in situ.
As I understand it—the Minister probably has more up-to-date information—Japan, Norway and possibly Iceland are expected to seek commercial quotas for Antarctic and North Atlantic minke whales at the IWC meeting in June. They must not be allowed to succeed.
The scientific committee of the IWC reported last year that to complete its testing of procedures for the harvesting of whales would take until at least 1991. I apologise for
564
using the word "harvesting" but that is the one that appears in the official documentation. I prefer the word "slaughter." The scientific committee has opposed any temporary measure for catch limits to be set in the interim. Nevertheless, Japan and Norway have made it clear that they intend to press for interim quotas. When the Minister replies I want him to tell us that the British Government will continue to resist such a request.
Further proposals for the slaughter of whales under scientific permit are expected again from Japan and Norway. Both countries have continued to kill minke whales throughout the moratorium, despite repeated requests by the IWC and the resolutions that have been passed and adopted against those programmes. The British Government have an excellent record of opposing spurious research, and I trust that that record will be maintained at the June meeting.
Scientific whaling is an abuse of language—it is a way of continuing restricted commercial whaling under the camouflage of science. Those are strong words, but in my view the Japanese are acting in a criminally irresponsible fashion by pursuing this so-called scientific whaling. At this very moment the Japanese are involved in a programme of whale slaughter in the Antarctic in which 300 minke whales will be killed as part of a so-called feasibility study arising from their original proposal, rejected by the IWC, for a programme which envisaged the slaughter of 825 minke whales and 50 sperm whales each year for the next 10 years. A total of 10,000 whales would be killed.
That is not science; it is systematic butchering with a legal technicality woven into it. Given that it is called scientific whaling it is funny how almost all the meat from the slaughter seems to end up on dinner plates in Tokyo and other Japanese cities. I am not a marine biologist, but I can tell the Japanese scientific community what the result of the slaughter of 300 minke whales will be—there will be 300 fewer minke whales than when the Japanese started their programme.
At an IWC meeting, the Japanese whaling commissioner, Mr. Kuzno Shima, said that the anti-whaling movement of which I, like many other hon. Members, am an active member, was racist because it was an attempt by the meat-eating culture to dominate the fish-eating culture. I reject such absurd and offensive language out of hand. Despite all the scientific whaling over the years by the Japanese it appears, in any case, that Mr. Shima still has not discovered the basic fact that whales are not fish. They are mammals. So much for scientific whaling.
The Japanese have no right to pursue their preferred eating habits at the price of the destruction of the world's whale population. Because they have been partially frustrated by the various whaling bans, the Japanese have been slaughtering the small cetaceans which are not covered by the IWC. Last year, about 40,000 Dall's porpoises were slaughtered. Baird's beaked whales and pilot whales have been slaughtered in the 200-mile fishing zone around Japan. The Japanese have said that this slaughter is being undertaken because they have not been allowed their quota of the larger whales. That gives the lie to the nonsense that their slaughter of minke whales is somehow in the name of or interests of science.
The Japanese have informed all commissioners that if they are not given the quota that they require, the Japanese Government will be unable to find any reason to stop their

565
fishermen killing minke whales. That is straightforward blackmail and I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the British Government will resist it.
I want the Government to consider imposing appropriate sanctions, in consultation with other EEC nations, against Japan until it respects world opinion about the whales. The Japanese and Norwegians do not own the whales. The whales belong to the planet, to all of us, and to slaughter them is a crime against the planet which should not be tolerated by civilised people.
It appears that the present stock of whales is much smaller than recent estimates suggest. The Minister may have more up-to-date information than I have about this. We must end the slaughter of all whales large and small, before we remove from the planet one of the most wondrous and beautiful creatures ever to have lived upon it.
2.44 pm
Mr. Harry Greenway rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have permission to speak from the hon. Member for Newham North-West (Mr. Banks) and from the Minister?
Mr. Greenway: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall be brief.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on his splendid initiative and his eloquent speech on this important matter. The Japanese attitude to whales is all that the hon. Gentleman says it is —barbaric and disgraceful. That same attitude extends to other animals. Beautiful horses are left to die in dereliction. I say humbly to the Japanese that they need to rethink their whole attitude and find some compassion for all animals, especially the whale.
As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has said, whales have almost human levels of communication, but they also have human levels of suffering. They know when they are about to be slaughtered and they suffer as any human being faced with murder must suffer. They are aware of what is going on. Nobody can say that the Japanese need the money that they get from the acquisition of 300 minke whales. Even if they did, that would not justify their embarking upon the slaughter of animals that suffer in the way that whales do. It is totally wrong and barbaric and the Japanese should desist from it.
Our Government must oppose any lifting of the moratorium. The Norwegians and the Japanese can find elsewhere the food and other resources that they obtain from whales. The world does not need food from slaughtered whales, nor does it need anything else that can be obtained from the carcases of whales. I call upon the Government to support the eloquent case advanced by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West for a world ban on the slaughter of whales.
2.48 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have permission to speak from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West and from the Minister?
Mr. Corbyn: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I, too, shall be brief.
566
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for his eloquent speech and I congratulate him on his determination and persistence on behalf of the whale and other endangered species.
I believe honestly and deeply that the treatment of whales is an example of the evil intelligence of humankind in relation to the rest of the natural world. We have seen greed of the most impossible kind descending on the Arctic and the Antarctic to destroy the most intelligent and beautiful creatures that the planet can produce.
History records the way in which whales dominated the oceans, and it documents the intelligence of these animals. At one time whales were fairly common in the north Atlantic and even in the North sea. The diaries of John Evelyn written in the 17th century record the fascination of thousands of Londoners who rushed to Deptford creek when, tragically, a whale was washed up there and died. People stared in awe at this wonderful and beautiful creature. The whale does not have a killer instinct and is not an evil animal. It does not live, as John Evelyn said, on slime—it lives on plankton.
We are in the process of destroying much of the planet through destruction of the ozone layer, leading to the greenhouse effect, and the destruction of life. The whale is an example of how such destruction happens. As the ozone layer is destroyed the plankton in the Southern ocean will die and the whales will lose much of their food. Last year we opposed the Antarctic Minerals Bill because we feared that it would lead to pollution of the Southern ocean and damage the whales' food supply.
The Government must oppose any extension of whaling of any type, scientific or otherwise, and I hope and trust that they will do so. But we must go further. Countries which engage in the barbarity of so-called scientific whaling, which in reality is crude commercialism of the nastiest kind, deserve retribution from us all and we must bring every possible sanction to bear against them. If we do not take care of our planet and our environment, and of animals such as the whale, mankind will suffer and our planet will die because we have not cared for the natural environment that we all share.
2.49 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I welcome the tone of the debate insofar as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that it does not concern a political matter. My remarks will support that point of view.
It may be helpful to the House if I outline the present situation. Three countries undertake whaling on a significant commercial scale. They are Japan, Norway and Iceland. There is also a certain amount of what one might describe as aboriginal whaling. That is covered by Alaska. The latest figures show that 41 bowhead whales were taken in 1989–90. In the Soviet Union, there is an agreement for catching 179 grey whales, which are caught commercially and then used in an artisanal manner.
In Greenland, the take of fin and minke whales is limited to 190 for the two years 1990 and 1991. Three whales will be taken in St. Vincent. Norway has announced that its scientific whaling will be reduced to a maximum of five minke this year. I have no doubt that that reflected certain pressures on Norway, but we none the less

567
welcome the fact that its take has fallen to an extremely low level. Iceland, which has completed a four-year programme that last year saw a take of 68 fin whales and no sei whales, has announced that it will undertake no research whaling in 1990. It is certainly not our intention that it should be replaced by commercial whaling.
Mr. Harry Greenway: What is the significance of Norway's announcement that it will take only five minke this year? Why cannot Norway take none at all?
Mr. Curry: I am unable to interpret the Norwegian Government's intentions, but I know that Norway was under significant pressure from its traditional whaling population. It may have made the judgment that to go for zero whaling would have been unacceptable in political terms and reached a compromise that will in practical terms, I suspect, amount to the same thing as zero whaling. Norway has said that it will take a maximum of five minke whales. When I met the Norwegian Fisheries Minister, I suggested to her that the correct number would be zero.
Japan did not observe the moratorium until 1988, and in 1987 it announced a programme for the following year of 825 whales for a so-called "research" programme. I qualify the word "research" quite deliberately. That was modified to a "pilot" programme in which about 500 whales were taken. Japan announced a programme for 1988 of 300 catches, and I understand that the final take was 241. Early last year, this country circulated a resolution calling for that programme to be halted. A postal ballot took place among all International Whaling Commission members, as opposed to just those attending the conference. We fell one vote short of the necessary majority to pass that resolution.
In June last year, Japan announced a programme of 400 catches. We again sponsored a resolution hostile to that programme, which led to the programme being modified to a catch of 300 whales, plus or minus 10 per cent. In the International Whaling Commission, we have sought to clarify what is meant by the word "research", which in my view is now being used in a rather too permissive manner. The scientists will submit evidence to the meeting that is to be held at the end of June and at the beginning of July in The Netherlands, when they will seek to clarify what is meant.
Altogether, three ballots have been organised at meetings of the International Whaling Commission. Two were launched between meetings, and the United Kingdom sponsored or co-sponsored every one of them. I am happy to join the hon. Member for Newham, North-West in saying that the matter goes right across the Chamber and that there is no political division between us.
Perhaps it will be helpful if I describe the line that we shall take at the forthcoming meeting of the IWC. The moratorium will continue unless there is a three quarter majority to lift it. It is a certainty, as much as anything can be a certainty, that the moratorium will continue. It is certainly our intention that that will be the case. The scientists are producing comprehensive assessments of the three main whale stocks—the Pacific gray, Antarctic minke, and Atlantic minke.
In a gradual programme of tightening up, we are looking for sensible management procedures to safeguard whales. We want a proper impact assessment of the actions
568
that others are demanding. We have an interest in ensuring that we keep all the whaling nations within the International Whaling Commission, for we do not want member countries to leave it and to resume whaling activity as freelancers, when as members of the IWC they are subject to certain constraints. We are quite clear that our purpose in the commission is to ensure that that activity continues on its current downward curve.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West mentioned small-boat whaling. The Japanese stopped that as part of the moratorium, but last year they sought to exploit minke off their coast. The International Whaling Commission declined permission for that, but as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West clearly and correctly stated, the Japanese have gone for the Baird's beaked whale and Dall's porpoises. They reported a take of 40,000 porpoises in 1988, but we understand that the figure was lower in 1989. We firmly believe that the IWC should regulate all cetacea of that nature, including dolphins and porpoises.
Mr. Tony Banks: I am a member of the Council of Europe. I moved several amendments to a report from one of its committees to extend the jurisdiction of the IWC to all cetacea. I hope that the Government will support that proposal in the Council of Ministers.
Mr. Curry: The Government agree that the IWC must extend its competence. We simply do not accept the argument that, because we put pressure on the Japanese to reduce their take of minke and other whales, they have a legitimate right to take different species. We do not think that there is a relationship between those two. We believe that they should take fewer of all species.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West mentioned the meat of whales ending up in high-class restaurants in Tokyo. I understand that it is claimed that it ends up in a school meals programme, but, wherever it ends up, the exploitation of these mammals is condemned by all public opinion with which we are in touch. The competence of the IWC in this sector is not as defined as in the whaling sector. We are therefore seeking to emphasise and to improve that competence.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West, who I know is interested in these matters, might be interested if I address myself specifically to the subject of Pacific drift netting. I know that that is not an IWC issue, but it falls within the category of over-extravagant forms of exploitation of resources. Drift nets are designed to catch tuna. Japan, Taiwan and South Korea are the main perpetrators. The nets can be 30 miles long and 15m deep. That deadly laced curtain catches species in an unregulated manner.
The number of Japanese vessels using drift nets has increased significantly. However, there is movement that is worth recording. About seven or eight months ago, there was a conference in Tarawa. At the subsequent Commonwealth conference, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister endorsed its statement, which sought to control this exploitation. There was a resolution in the United Nations sponsored by the United States, in November, against drift net fishing. Last year, the UN agreed two important measures to cut fishing and to ban the drift net technique by June 1991 unless better management was in place in the south Pacific region and to call for a moratorium on all large-scale drift net fishing

569
on the high seas by June 1992, subject to the same condition of effective conservation management techniques.
There is a slight problem, because although Taiwan is one of the offenders, it is not recognised in the United Nations and is therefore excluded from discussions. We have supported the UN resolution because that large form of indiscriminate fishing falls in the same category as the wilful over-exploitation of whales.
Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister agree that international decisions must be taken on fishing policy and that the basic decision should be sustainability of the species being fished? Drift netting makes it impossible to monitor that because one does not know what will be killed, even if one is looking for a sustainable species of fish to catch.
Mr. Curry: That is certainly the case. One of the ways forward on drift netting is to find out more about the tuna stock and how it behaves, and to develop far more selective gear to take tuna without having an effect on other creatures. In that sense, the approach does not differ at all from the attempts to improve conservation techniques for haddock and cod in the North sea. It is a question of trying to be more selective, and having a more scientific and accepted basis for the stocks and the level of exploitation that they will suffer. That seems to be the way forward.
In those three areas we have been able to record progress and we should all have liked to see it go faster. It is important to ensure that all the nations are brought within the scope of the IWC on whales and cetaceans, so that they are at least subject to the pressure that can be exercised there.
The figures show that there has been an improvement and, of course, that improvement must continue. We estimate that between 1985 and 1987, Japan took just under 2,300 whales of all species—that is, whales proper, not the smaller mammals. Between 1986 and 1989, the average of minke, which is the principal species fished, was down to 258. The decline was perceptible. Iceland, between 1983 and 1985, took 411, and with last year, which was the last year in which there was a scientific take,
570
the average figure was down to 90 animals. Iceland has said that it will not be taking any more this year. There has been continual pressure.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West asked me whether the British Government would continue to take the lead in this matter. I affirm that it is our intention to do so. We recognise that when we approach these matters, we must respect two critieria. The first is the emotional impact that this issue has on our own public opinion. It is an issue on which it is perfectly legitimate to express an emotional as well as a scientific reaction. In the IWC, we must argue the case, persuade people and win a majority. We have to be able to translate that emotional feeling into a scientific and political thrust to win allies and to gain the argument. We have to be able to argue by persuasion. If we do not, countries may simply renounce their participation in the organisation. It is important that we should say that being successful ultimately in continuing the decline in exploitation is important to us. If that means that there is a time scale longer than some of us would like, it is still important to have a persistent, consistent attitude through which we try to build a greater, effective scientific resource of information.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West for initiating the debate. We agree across the House on this subject. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and the hon.. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). We can say that the House speaks for the British public on the issue. It certainly speaks for the junior members of the British public. Few of us will have had schools in our constituencies which do not take a particular interest in the fate of this unique resource of our planet. I subscribe to everything that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has said about the unique beauty and mystery of a beast that was here a long time before we inhabited the planet. I hope that we can continue to coexist with it and respect it for its particular qualities for as long as the human race has the advantage and privilege of inhabiting this planet.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Three o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will outline the effect of the financial arrangements for the capital requirements of grant-maintained schools on the capital spending budget for the local education authority.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend pays 100 per cent. grant to a grant-maintained school for approved expenditure on capital projects. There is no recovery of such payments from the local education authority. In addition, the Department sets annual capital guidelines for education for each LEA. These guidelines do not take account of capital grant to GM schools in an authority's area. It is for each LEA to decide capital spending on its schools in the light of local needs and circumstances, and LEAs are free, within the flexibilities of the Local Government Acts, to spend above the level of their annual capital guidelines from capital receipts and other resources.

  Books (Romania)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received any requests from Romania(a) to replace historic and academic books lost in fires during the Romanian revolution and (b) to supply textbooks for schoolchildren learning English as a second language.

  Mr. Jackson
  Any such requests would normally be directed to the British Council.

  The British Council received an appeal for replacement books from the director of the central university library, Bucharest, but the following action was already being taken:

  i. Following an appeal by four British academics Richard Crampton, Richard Clogg, Dennis

  National curriculum timetable

  Introduction of attainment targets and programmes of study Autumn

  Pupils aged

  5 years

  7–8 years

  11–12 years

  14–15 years

  1989

  Mathematics

  —

  Mathematics

  —

  Science

  Science

  English

  1990

  Technology

  Mathematics

  English

  —

  Science

  Technology

  English

  Technology

  1991

  History

  History

  History

  —

  Geography

  Geography

  Geography

  336

  i.Deletant and Stevan Pavlowitch, 250,000 books have been donated by the general public and publishers, and the British Council is paying for the transportation of the books to Romania. The British Council is also supplying books and library equipment direct to the central university library and other university libraries.

  ii. No specific requests for books for schoolchildren learning English as a second language have been received but among the books going out are English language books. A main area of activity for the British Council in Romania has always been support for English language teaching, in particular lo university English language departments. It is hoped that this can be expanded in the future.

  GCSE
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will consult the representatives of headmasters in the state and independent sectors in order to hear their assessment of the effect of GCSE examinations taking place earlier in the academic year.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has already received a number of representations from head teachers on this matter. The joint council for the GCSE is itself considering a consultation of all centres offering the GCSE. My right hon. Friend will expect to discuss with it the outcomes of that consultation.

  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will consult the GCSE examining groups, the joint council for the GCSE and other relevant bodies with a view to ending the practice whereby GCSE examinations are taking place earlier in the summer term.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is asking for a meeting with the joint council to discuss this matter.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will outline the phases to which he referred in his reply of 21 February,Official Report, column 796, covering the implementation of the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The phases of implementation of the national curriculum and related assessment arrangements are set out in the table:
  337

  Pupils aged

  5 years

  7–8 years

  11–12 years

  14–15 years

  1992

  Art

  Art

  Modern foreign language

  Mathematics

  Music

  Music

  Science

  Physical education

  Physical education

  Art

  English

  Music

  Physical Education

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  Technology

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  History

  Geography

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  Modern foreign language

  Art

  Music

  Physical education

  Timetables for history, geography, modern foreign language, art, music, and physical education are provisional.

  None of the attainment targets and programmes of study in maths, science and English will be a requirement for pupils with statements of special educational needs until autumn 1990. This gives time for their statements to be revised if necessary.

  First national assessments Summer

  Pupils aged

  7 years

  11 years

  14 years

  16 years

  1991

  Mathematics

  —

  —

  —

  Science

  English

  1992

  Technology

  —

  Mathematics

  —

  Science

  1993

  History

  English

  —

  Geography

  Technology

  1994

  Art

  Mathematics

  History

  Mathematics

  Music

  Science

  Geography

  Science

  Physical education

  English Technology

  English

  1995

  —

  History

  Modern foreign language

  Technology

  Geography

  Art

  Music

  Physical education

  1996

  —

  Art

  —

  History

  Music

  Geography

  Physical education

  1997

  —

  —

  —

  Modern foreign language

  Art

  Music

  Physical education

  Individual pupils' results in any statutory assessments or public examinations will have to be reported to their parents from 1991 onwards. Schools will not be required to publish statistics of key stage I assessments, though they will be encouraged to do so. They will be required to publish statistics of key stage 2 and 3 assessments, but only from the second year of operation onwards. For key stage 4, they will already be under a requirement to publish GCSE results.

TRANSPORT

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of passenger traffic to the continent he estimates will eventually use the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  Eurotunnel expects 43·9 million passengers to use the tunnel in 2003, 36 per cent. of passenger traffic to and from the continent.

  London Roads Assessment
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (I) how many letters he had received by 23 February from residents living in London(a) in support and (b) opposed to the London roads assessment options; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what has been, for the latest available date, the number of letters that his Department has received (a) in favour and (b) in opposition to the London roads assessment options; and if he will make a statement.
  339
  Mr. Atkins
  It will take a little time to collate and analyse the responses received. The outcome will be announced as soon as possible.

  Quarterly Statistics
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what considerations informed the decision to discontinue bus and coach data from quarterly transport statistics and replace them by information on United Kingdom-registered goods vehicles carried on roll-on roll-off ferries from Great Britain to mainland Europe.

  Mr. Portillo
  As part of the Government's continuing objective of lessening the burden on industry of responding to surveys, it has been decided that the quarterly monitoring of bus and coach operators' performance is no longer required for Department of Transport purposes. The decision to include in the quarterly transport statistics information on United Kingdom-registered goods vehicles carried on roll-on roll-off ferries to mainland Europe was made by the editor.

  The performance of the bus and coach industry will continue to be monitored on an annual basis, and will be included in the Department's annual publication, "Transport Statistics Great Britain". More detailed information will be available in the annual specialised publication, "Bus and Coach Statistics".

  Train Accidents
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total number of train accidents caused by technical defects in 1989; and what was the comparable number for(a) 1979, (b) 1983 and (c)

  Mr. Portillo
  The number of train accidents caused by technical defects in 1989 is not yet available. For 1979, 1983 and 1987 the numbers were respectively 244, 276 and 268.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Inflation
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the underlying rate of inflation in each member state of the European Community at the latest available date.

  Mr. Ryder
  The inflation rates given in the table exclude estimates of home owners' costs and are, therefore, more comparable across countries:

  12-month growth rate of consumer prices in the European Community

  December 198911

  United Kingdom2

  6·1

  Germany

  2·6

  France

  3·6

  Italy

  6·4

  Belgium

  3·6

  Denmark

  4·8

  Greece

  14·8

  Ireland

  4·2

  Luxembourg

  3·9

  Netherlands

  1·0

  Portugal

  11·6

  Spain

  6·6

  340
  1 Except United Kingdom, Germany and Italy (January 1990), and Ireland (1989, 4th quarter).

  2 United Kingdom figure is for RPI excluding mortgage interest payments (MIPs). Where other countries include estimates of home owners' housing costs, these have been excluded to put figures on a more comparable basis.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Poland
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the Government have so far committed from the £50 million know-how fund for Poland; and how much they expect to spend in the current financial year.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Possible commitments on projects financed under the £50 million know-how fund for Poland now stand at around £18·3 million. We expect to spend approximately £2·3 million in the current financial year.

  Oban-Korup National Park
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of the Cameroons on the need to prevent commercial logging companies logging in the Oban-Korup national park.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the Governments of France and Germany about French and German timber companies logging in and near the Korup rain forest in Cameroon; and if he will make a statement on the consequences of such action for Her Majesty's Government's aid policy.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No logging is permitted in Korup national park itself. The recent press reports have been about licences granted for logging in the buffer zone around Korup. Under Cameroonian law these licences should not have been granted without prior consultation with local government leaders and village chiefs in the interests of preserving economically important trees, water supplies and traditional hunting zones in the vicinity of each village. We share the concern of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) that recent logging activities may not have been subject to this condition and may be detrimental to the WWF's Korup project, which is being partly funded from the British aid programme.

  The British embassy in Yaounde has already expressed its concern to the Cameroonian Ministry of Agriculture and the ambassador is being instructed to raise the matter formally at ministerial level. Meanwhile we are assured by the Cameroon authorities that existing licences for exploitation within the Korup buffer zone were issued before the establishment of the national park and that no new licences will be issued for exploitation within the zone.

  We are now considering whether it would be desirable to make demarches to the Governments of countries whose logging companies are active in the vicinity of Korup, bearing it in mind that the powers of those Governments in respect of private companies may be strictly limited.

  Children (Vaccination)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contributions Britain has made in the last year to the vaccination of children in developing countries against the main killer diseases.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We support immunisation programmes through the United Nations Children's Fund, to which we contributed £8·4 million in 1989–90. In the same period we provided £200,000 to the Polio Plus Campaign run by Rotary International and £64,000 to the WHO Cold Chain Support Unit. In addition, many of the bilateral primary health care projects we fund and the 315 health projects run by non-governmental organisations, which we support under our joint funding scheme, include an immunisation component.

  International Organisations
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those international organisations to which the United Kingdom is affiliated which grant or lend money, giving the United Kingdom's latest annual contributions where applicable in each case.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The international organisations and the United Kingdom contributions paid for from the overseas aid programme showing the amounts paid in 1988 (the latest year for which full data are available), are as follows:

  United Kingdom contribution in 1988

  Organisation

  £'000

  UN Agencies1

  International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

  2,564

  UN Development Programme (UNDP)

  24,500

  UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) General Programme

  3,750

  UNICEF Special Appeals

  8,473

  UN Agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA)

  5,250

  UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR)

  3,500

  UNHCR (Special Appeals)

  15,970

  UN Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO)

  2,804

  UN Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA)

  5,250

  World Food Programme (WFP)

  4,856

  World Health Organisation (WHO) Research Programmes

  11,407

  Other UN development agencies

  2,561

  World Bank Group

  International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)

  6,561

  International Development Association (IDA)

  207,000

  International Finance Corporation (IFC)

  3,558

  Regional Development Banks

  African Development Bank

  329

  African Development Fund

  6,374

  Asian Development Bank

  1,172

  Asian Development Fund

  13,045

  Caribbean Development Bank (CDB)

  200

  CDB Special Development Fund

  3,517

  Inter-American Development Bank (IADB)

  1,491

  IADB Fund for Special Operations

  3,002

  International Monetary Fund2

  Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility

  8,500

  European Community3

  European Development Fund

  119,004

  342

  Organisation

  £'000

  International research organisations

  Agricultural and medical research

  6,915

  Other international organizations4

  9,772

  1 Excludes UN bodies whose activities benefit both developing and developed countries and where United Kingdom subscriptions relate only partly to developmental activities.

  2 Contributions to the IMF's general resources account form part of the United Kingdom reserves.

  3 Excludes overseas aid paid for from the EC budget and from European Investment Bank's own resources.

  4 Includes such Commonwealth programmes as the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation and Commonwealth Youth Programme; and contributions to South Pacific Commission.

  Source: British Aid Statistics 1984–1988, Table 8 (a copy of which is in the Library of the House).

THE ARTS

  Museums
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what provision he has made for the refurbishment of museums in the current year.

  Mr. Luce
  The grant in aid in 1989–90 for the building and maintenance programme of the national museums and galleries which I sponsor was £48 million. I announced on 16 November 1989 that the provision would rise to £57 million in 1990–91; in 1992–93 the provision will be £64 million, a rise of 34 per cent. over the three years.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  The Three Graces
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will further defer a decision on the application for a licence to export Antonio Canova's The Three Graces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  After consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, I have decided to extend the present period of deferral for the application for a licence to export The Three Graces until Wednesday 4 April.

  Export control procedures affecting heritage items have been under review, including the policy of deferring a decision on an export licence application to enable a United Kingdom public institution to make an offer to purchase. As a result, I propose henceforth to take account of an offer from any source, whether public or private. I am ready to consider any representations by persons affected by this change of policy, which will apply both to new applications and to outstanding applications such as The Three Graces; other deferrals, including those for interim review, due to expire before 4 April will also be extended to that date.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North of 20 February,Official Report, column 781, and to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) of 20 February, Official Report, column 783, if he will list which organisations or

  343
  individuals within the borough of Sunderland made representations to him opposing the recommencement of shipbuilding at the Southwick shipyard.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: Representations have been made in private discussions questioning whether a return to shipbuilding some years hence, and the uncertainties that must be inherent in such a proposal, represents the best prospect for the long-term development of Sunderland and of the sites in question.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what legal basis the European Commission has to approve or disapprove the sale of land within the United Kingdom to companies within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: Article 222 EEC states that
  "This Treaty should in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership".

  However, the Commission of the European Communities, acting under articles 92–93 EEC and any relevant Community legal instruments, may include conditions on the use of land as part of the terms on which it approves state aid where such use is material to the case concerned. Thus, for example, the payment of closure aid for shipbuilding allows the Commission to impose conditions on the use of the site concerned, and that would need to be reflected in any subsequent disposal of that land.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to control the purchase of biotechnology companies by agrochemical companies.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 28 February 1990]: There are no grounds for intervention to distort market mechanisms in the purchase of biotechnology companies. Small, research-based firms in biotechnology cannot take ideas through to commercial production alone; purchase by an established company can provide the significant extra resource needed.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to ban the patenting of genetically manipulated animals.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 28 February 1990]: As I indicated to the hon. Gentleman in my answer of 16 January 1990 (Hansard, column 187, Vol 165, No 31), a European Community proposal for a directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions would, if adopted, confirm that patent applications for inventions concerned with genetically manipulated animals would be granted, provided other patentability criteria were met.

  Discussions on this proposal are continuing, however, and the Government will take a view on it at the appropriate time.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to assess the chlorofluorocarbon recycling technology developed by Volvo in Sweden to evaluate its applicability to British industry.
  344
  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: The DTI commissioned a major study in 1989 to assess the options for CFC recovery, recycling and disposal. This study will provide us with an assessment of commercially proven recycling technologies and their applicability to the United Kingdom industry.

WALES

  Health Care
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his reply of 6 February,Official Report, column 551, whose budget any follow-up treatment will be under if a patient who has been referred to a treatment centre outside his/her own health authority to receive initial treatment, is examined at facilities other than the said treatment centre following the agreement of the referring consultant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  If, with the agreement of the referring consultant, a patient from a treatment centre receives follow-up treatment in his or her home health authority, then the cost will be charged to that authority. This will still leave the referring authority with a net financial benefit in most instances since the cost of operating on the patient will have been borne by the treatment centre.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what plans there are with regard to the non-geriatric care currently provided to patients from Wales by the five community hospitals in Shropshire health authority, following their being sold off and converted to private nursing homes; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what will happen to patients from Wales who are receiving care at the five hospitals in the Shropshire health authority when those hospitals are sold off and converted into private nursing homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health on 23 February. If Shropshire health authority should decide to proceed with its proposals to change the use of some of its cottage hospitals, it will be required to consult all interested parties, including those Welsh health authorities whose residents may have cause to use the facilities. Welsh health authorities would need to consider what alternative provision might need to be made in the light of any such consultation exercise being undertaken.

  Kidney Transplants
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to increase the funding for kidney transplants at Cardiff royal infirmary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Proposals from South Glamorgan health authority to increase kidney transplant provision at Cardiff royal infirmary are presently being considered by the Welsh Office.

  Education Grants
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the grants made in Wales under section 21 of the Education Act 1980, since that Act came into force,
  345
  indicating the year in which each grant was made, the amount of each grant, the local authority to whose area each grant applied, and the specific purpose to which each grant was to be directed.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the information requested and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Sewage
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the amounts of raw sewage that were returned to land during the recent coastal storms in north Wales; and what steps have subsequently been taken to decontaminate areas polluted by such sewage.

  Mr. Grist
  The area of Towyn, Rhyl, Kinmel bay and Abergele is sewered by short sea outfalls and it is estimated that some 50,000 litres of sewage is produced per day. Until tidal surges penetrated the sea wall at Towyn, the sewage flow continued to discharge to the sea. Soon after the wall was breached, power supplies were lost and any sewage pumping would have ceased. Gravity discharges would also have ceased because there was no longer any free discharge. After the majority of the population from the affected parts of Towyn was evacuated to dry areas, sewage generation would largely have stopped in that area. Sewage from surrounding areas would have continued to flow, however, and this sewage would have been mixed with the incoming sea water. It is not possible to say whether the sewage discharged through the outfalls or escaped into the mass of flood water through drains and manholes but it is probable that quantities of sewage are present in the flood water and the proportion of sewage will increase the longer the flood waters remain. The sewage will have been diluted both by the rainfall during the period and, to a much greater extent, by the invading sea water. A small number of properties are on cesspits and septic tanks and the contents of these tanks will by now have mixed with the flood water.

  Responsibility for the possible public health consequences of the flood and therefore for the clean-up operation rests with the appropriate environmental health officer who has powers to take such action as he deems fit to reduce any risk to human health.

ENERGY

  Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport West,Official Report, 23 February, column 933, regarding the export criteria set out, since 1979, whether any plutonium has been exported to (a) the United States of America from the United Kingdom not kept under safeguards, and (b) to Japan from the United Kingdom which was not produced in the United Kingdom or an EEC member state; how much plutonium was exported to Canada in 1983; and from which reactor or reactors this came.

  Mr. Baldry
  Exports of unsafeguarded plutonium are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
  346
  During the period mentioned by the hon. Member, plutonium from the reprocessing of irradiated fuel from a Japanese reactor has been returned to Japan.

  The plutonium returned to Canada in 1983 was produced from the reprocessing of irradiated fuel from the Calder Hall and Chapelcross reactors. The plutonium was brought under safeguards after extraction from the irradiated fuel and prior to its export to Canada for civil purposes. The amount involved cannot be disclosed for reasons of commercial confidentiality but is included in the overall total given in the reply by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 17 January 1989 at column 157.

  South Africa (Oil Imports)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish his report on whether the tanker Almarc Terza broke the guidelines on oil exported to South Africa.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have nothing to add to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 11 January 1990, at columns 693–94.

  Nuclear Energy (Safeguards)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assistance the United Kingdom has afforded the International Atomic Energy Agency in developing safeguards expertise under the provisions of article 12 of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom carries out a safeguards research and development programme in support of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The programme is carried out by AEA technology and currently costs approximately £1 million per year; the costs are borne by my Department.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if Her Majesty's Government have ever made available details of technical studies conducted on safeguards implementation at United Kingdom nuclear reprocessing plants to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Mr. Baldry
  Yes. BNFL and the UKAEA provide technical studies to the IAEA when agreeing safeguards approaches for their facilities; these naturally include reprocessing issues. A safeguards research and development programme is carried out for the IAEA by the UKAEA and this involves some work on plant reprocessing studies. In addition, the international study group on large scale commercial plant reprocessing (LASCAR), in which the United Kingdom is involved, provides technical guidance to the IAEA.

  The information given to the IAEA on reprocessing plant safeguards is either commercially sensitive or has security implications.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mr. John Harker
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he has received the file of information relating to the case of Mr. John Harker, a prisoner in Her Majesty's prison, Kirkham; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he intends to notify the hon. Member for Stockton, South about the outcome of his Department's inquiry into the case of Mr. John Harker.

  Mr. John Patten
  A reply was sent on 26 January to my hon. Friend acknowledging recent representations from Mr. Harker. The representations are under consideration and a further letter will be sent as soon as the examination of the case is complete.

  Deportation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations his private office has received requesting arbitration on a decision of the Chief Immigration Officer to deport individuals from the United Kingdom since the introduction of the system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not available. The "Guidelines on the handling of representations by Members of Parliament in immigration cases" describe the way in which Home Office Ministers exercise their responsibilities for implementing an effective and efficient immigration control. A copy of the guidelines is available in the Library.

  Electoral Law
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to reform election law to give homeless persons the right to vote.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under the Representation of the People Act 1983, to be entitled to vote a person must be resident at an address in a constituency or electoral area on the qualifying date and must be registered there. We have no plans to change this requirement.

  Crime Victims
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will amend existing legislation to enable victims of crimes or their representatives to exercise the same right to a hearing for a retrial in the Court of Appeal as that given to a convicted criminal when new evidence is produced and a miscarriage of justice has been established.

  Mr. John Patten
  The victim's charter we published on 22 February—a copy of which is in the Library—sets out some questions for discussion including whether the victim could or should be given some opportunity to be heard in court. As the charter explains, we have no immediate proposals for change, but would welcome views. We could not however support a change which would enable the victim to call into question an acquittal, which would violate the principle that a person who has been acquitted should not he tried a second time.

  Members' Inquiries
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long he expects to take to answer questions from hon. Members about constituents in prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  We aim to answer all correspondence from hon. Members as quickly as possible. At present, the average time taken to reply to hon. Members' letters on prison issues, including those about constituents in prison, is 31 days.

  Football
  Miss. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis showing(a) when the national football intelligence unit of the Metropolitan police will be fully operational, (b) what is the staffing level of the unit and (c) what is its annual budget.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The national football intelligence unit's staff (one superintendent, one inspector, one sergeant, three constables and one typist) has been at work since December 1989. Its computer support is expected to be operational shortly. Its budget for the financial year 1990–91 is £300,000. These matters do not fall within the responsibility of the Commissioner.

  Romania
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to provide easier methods for the fostering in the United Kingdom of children orphaned in the Romanian revolution.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is no provision in the immigration rules for children from overseas to come to the United Kingdom to be fostered. However, children adopted in Romania, or coming to the United Kingdom from Romania for adoption, may be admitted provided that careful inquiries into the circumstances of both the child and the prospective parents show that the proposed adoption is in the child's best interests. These inquiries are necessary to ensure that children adopted from overseas are protected in the same way as children adopted in the United Kingdom.

  Hepatitis B
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of hepatitis B infection in prisoners have been reported since 1979.

  Mr. Mellor:
  Cases have been reported for statistical purposes only since 1984. The latest information is given in the table:

  Hepatitis B: Prisoners requiring treatment or special precautions

  Reporting period

  Acute cases

  Chronic cases (carriers)

  1 January 1984 to 31 March 19851

  152

  240

  1 April 1985 to 31 March 1986

  165

  295

  1 April 1986 to 31 March 1987

  150

  285

  1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988

  155

  198

  1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989

  105

  242

  1 15 months.

  349
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if prisoners are informed of or offered vaccination against hepatitis B; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Vaccination policy for prisoners is modelled on practice in the general community. Prison medical officers decide which prisoner patients should be offered vaccination, using their clinical judgment and having regard to guidelines issued by the director of prison medical services. The guidelines recommend that medical officers consider offering vaccination to those prisoners who are identified as belonging to a high risk behaviour group and who are expected to remain in the prison system long enough to complete the six-month course.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what action his Department has taken to prevent the spread of hepatitis B in prison;

  (2) what instructions his Department issues to prison governors regarding combating the spread of hepatitis B.

  Mr. Mellor
  Our measures include medical inquiry and examination at the reception stage, selective vaccination on a voluntary basis, education and counselling, and limited regime restrictions for identified hepatitis B carriers at the discretion of the prison medical officer.

  Governors have an important part to play in facilitating educational initiatives within the resources available to them. They have been encouraged to make wide use of the prison service education package "AIDS Inside and Out", which provides a context for the delivery of important messages relevant to the prevention of hepatitis B infection.

  Broadcasting
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about the transitional arrangements to be made in the Broadcasting Bill for existing cable systems other than broad band cable franchise holders.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) announced our proposals on the future licensing arrangements for local delivery systems, including SMATV systems, on 27 April last year. The transitional arrangements we are envisaging are to be seen against the background of those proposals.

  As those proposals made clear, systems covering fewer than 1,000 homes will not need to be licensed by the Independent Television Commission under the new arrangements. This proposal will be implemented, subject to parliamentary approval, by the making of a designation order under the provisions of clause 65(1) of the Broadcasting Bill. Accordingly, any existing SMATV licences for systems covering fewer than 1,000 homes will lapse when the relevant provisions of the Bill are brought into force. Any existing unlicensed systems covering fewer than 1,000 homes will be able to continue in operation. Any system covering fewer than 1,000 homes, whether previously licensed by the Cable Authority or not, will be able to carry BBC services, services regulated by the ITC, S4C and services originating from a Council of Europe or convention country.

  SMATV systems licensed to cover 1,000 homes or more, and which fall wholly or partly within a cable franchise area (ie an area covered by a prescribed diffusion
  350
  service licence issued by the Cable Authority by the time the relevant provisions of the Bill are brought into force), will continue to be able to operate under their existing licences while they remain in force. The ITC will be empowered to extend those licences if necessary until such a time as it is satisfied that the broad band cable operator is able to offer an alternative service to the homes passed by the SMATV system.

  SMATV systems licensed to cover more than 1,000 homes, which fall wholly outside any cable franchise area, will be deemed to have a local delivery licence starting from the date on which the relevant provisions of the Bill are brought into force. This licence will last for five years, and will be renewable under the provisions of clause 71 of the Broadcasting Bill after three years. The percentage of qualifying revenue for the purposes of clause 67 will be deemed to be zero. Licensees will not be granted the use of MVDS frequencies.

  Systems covering more than 1,000 homes which carry only the four terrestrial channels, and which are in consequence unlicensed at present, will continue to be able to operate without the need for an ITC licence while they carry only those channels.

  Other unlicensed systems covering more than 1,000 homes (including systems carrying the IBA's DBS services) which have not previously been licensed as SMATV systems by the Cable Authority will, if they fall wholly or partly within a cable franchise area, be deemed to have a SMATV licence under the terms of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984. This licence will be deemed to start on the day when the relevant provisions of the Bill are brought into force, and to last for five years. The ITC will be empowered to extend the licence until such a time as it is satisfied that the broad band cable operator is able to offer an alternative service to the homes passed by the system.

  Unlicensed systems meeting the same criteria which fall wholly outside cable franchise areas will be deemed to have a local delivery licence starting from the date on which the relevant provisions of the Bill are brought into force. The terms of this licence will be the same as those described outlined above in relation to SMATV systems which will be deemed to have local delivery licences.

  The provisions necessary to implement these proposals will be included in the Broadcasting Bill. Subject to parliamentary approval, we are planning that the proposals will come into effect on 1 January 1991.

  Blundeston Prison
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on current staffing levels at Her Majesty's prison, Blundeston, in the light of the 1988 fresh start agreements.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: There are at present 140 officers (including senior and principal officers) in post; regional management's target level is 146 for 1989–90 and it plans to post a further six officers to Blundeston this month.

PRIME MINISTER

  Regional Development
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received about regional development in the United Kingdom.

  The Prime Minister
  The Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, for Scotland and for Wales receive regular representations on regional industrial development.

  Zoonoses
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received about zoonoses.

  The Prime Minister
  I have not received any such recent representations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health keeps these diseases under review.

  Heritage
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received on built heritage.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend and I receive representations frequently. The built heritage makes a particularly important contribution both to the quality of life within our communities and to the tourism industry. The Government are concerned to ensure that the nation's wealth of important buildings, monuments and sites are preserved wherever possible.

  Global Warming
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister what current involvement the United Kingdom has in(a) the international geosphere-biosphere project and (b) the world climate research programme, in regard to research conducted into global warming and the greenhouse effect.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology's report on the greenhouse effect which gives full details of the important contribution the research councils and the Meteorological Office are making to these international research programmes.

  Clockwork Orange
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to her reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North of 27 February, when General Sir Frank King made it clear to her that he did not recall any project specifically named Clockwork Orange.

  The Prime Minister
  General Sir Frank King and General Sir Peter Leng gave that information to officials on Saturday 17 February.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to her reply of 27 February, whether any projects not specifically named Clockwork Orange but of a similar intent or nature were known to Her Majesty's Government or military officers.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the information given by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces during the Adjournment debate on 6 February at columns 866–68.

  Environment (International Co-operation)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her reply to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter),Official Report, 22 February, columns 872–73, how the figures of (a) £3 million United Kingdom annual contribution to the United Nations environment programme and (b) £100 million United Kingdom contribution over three years to the conservation of tropical forests were reached.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom more than doubled its contribution to UNEP in 1989 in recognition of the increasing awareness and importance of international environmetal issues and the need to strengthen UN EP's capacity to meet these challenges.

  In deciding to commit a further £100 million of bilateral aid over the next three years as part of Britain's help to conserve tropical forests we took account of the global significance of the issue, the way in which we judge the United Kingdom is equipped to help effectively in this field, the scope for contribution from other aid donors and other pressures on our aid programme resources.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what policies she has formulated in regard to(a) aid to promote democratic development, (b) aid to support educational development, (c) aid to support environmental improvement and (d) aid to support energy efficiency and security in the countries of eastern Europe following political changes in these states in the past six months.

  The Prime Minister
  On 22 January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs announced a single know-how fund for eastern Europe. This included our existing commitments to Poland (£50 million) and Hungary (£25 million), and new money would be made available to finance help to other eastern European countries once they are fully committed to reform.

  So far we have made detailed plans in respect of Poland, where we expect to spend some £2·3 million in the current financial year. Proposals are being worked out for assistance in the energy sector, and will look, among other things, at the issues of energy efficiency and the reduction of environmental pollution from power stations. The Polish authorities have also asked for assistance with the creation of new language teacher training institutes, for advice on educational reform, and an exploratory mission will be visiting Poland this month. We have also enabled groups of politicians from Poland and Hungary to participate in seminars on the United Kingdom's parliamentary system organised by the Great Britain/east Europe centre, training in media techniques, and training directly relevant to the local government elections to be held in Poland in April.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Tourism
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the review of tourist policy in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  Following the publication of the tourism policy document "Tourism in Northern Ireland—A View
  353
  to the Future" in June last year, considerable work has been undertaken to implement the proposals it contained. A number of the measures, including a new scheme of financial assistance, have already been introduced and work is in hand on the preparation of the new legislation which will be required to give effect to the full range of the proposals.

  Public Houses
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what grants are available for the provision of accommodation in public houses.

  Mr. Needham
  A new scheme of selective financial assistance will be available from 2 April 1990 to private sector projects providing additional tourist accommodation or upgrading existing facilities. Assistance in the form of interest relief grants or loans will be offered to projects which can demonstrate the potential to achieve more holiday visitors to Northern Ireland, leading to additional revenue and/or employment. Public house developments which meet those criteria will be considered. Projects in Belfast and Londonderry may also qualify for urban development grant in appropriate cases.

  Prisoners
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons in Northern Ireland are presently serving sentences of detention at the pleasure of the Secretary of State; of these how many are for(a) murder and (b) other serious offences; and of these how many were admitted members of (i) the Ulster Defence Association, (ii) the Ulster Freedom Fighters, (iii) the Ulster Volunteer Force, (iv) the RUC, (v) other loyalist paramilitary groups, (vi) the Official Irish Republican Army, (vii) the Provisional Irish Republican Army, (viii) the Irish National Liberation Army, (ix) other Roman Catholic paramilitary groups, (x) any junior wing by each category of the foregoing and (xi) none of the above, at the time the crime was committed.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: The sentence of detention at the pleasure of the Secretary of State can be imposed only in cases of murder. Twenty-five prisoners are currently serving such sentences. At the time of conviction, their paramilitary affiliation was as follows:

  Paramilitary affiliation

  Number convicted

  Ulster Defence Association

  3

  Ulster Volunteer Force

  1

  Provisional Irish Republican Army

  16

  None

  5

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons serving(a) a life sentence for murder, (b) a life sentence for other serious crime and (c) a sentence at the pleasure of the Secretary of State have been released from prison in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years; of these, how many were admitted members of each paramilitary or terrorist group or their junior wing when the crime was committed; if he will indicate the periods served; and if he will set out the information in a table.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: The information requested is as follows:
  354

  Indeterminate sentence prisoners released by affiliation and years served (1 January 1980–31 December 1989) Numbers released by years served Less than 10 years

  Year and affiliation

  A

  B

  C

  1980

  PIRA

  —

  1

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1981

  PIRA

  —

  1

  1

  UVF

  1

  —

  —

  None

  —

  1

  —

  1982

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  None

  1

  —

  —

  1983

  UVF

  —

  1

  —

  UDA

  —

  —

  2

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  UVF

  1

  —

  —

  1985

  UDA

  —

  —

  3

  UVF

  —

  —

  1

  PIRA

  1

  —

  —

  OIRA

  1

  —

  1

  1986

  UDA

  —

  —

  3

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  PIRA

  —

  —

  2

  None

  1

  —

  —

  1987

  UVF

  —

  —

  1

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  UVF

  —

  —

  1

  PIRA

  1

  —

  —

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1989

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  7

  4

  15

  A—Murder

  B—Other

  C—SOSP

  10 years

  Year and affiliation

  A

  B

  C

  1980

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  1

  —

  —

  1981

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  355

  Year and affiliation

  A

  B

  C

  1982

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  None

  1

  —

  1

  1983

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  UVF

  1

  —

  1

  PIRA

  —

  —

  1

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  OIRA

  —

  —

  2

  PIRA

  1

  —

  1

  None

  1

  —

  —

  1987

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  UDA

  —

  1

  —

  PIRA

  1

  1

  —

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  UDA

  —

  —

  1

  UVF

  1

  —

  —

  PIRA

  1

  —

  —

  OIRA

  1

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1989

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  1

  —

  —

  Total

  10

  2

  7

  A—Murder

  B—Other

  C—SOSP

  11 years

  Year and affiliation

  A

  B

  C

  1980

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1981

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1982

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  None

  1

  1

  —

  1983

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  356

  Year and affiliation

  A

  B

  C

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  UVF

  1

  —

  1

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  UVF

  2

  —

  1

  UDA

  —

  —

  1

  PIRA

  —

  —

  3

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  1

  —

  1988

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1989

  UVF

  1

  —

  —

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  PIRA

  1

  —

  —

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  6

  2

  6

  A—Murder

  B—Other

  C—SOSP

  12 years

  Year and affiliation

  A

  B

  C

  1980

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1981

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1982

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1983

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  1

  —

  —

  1984

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  UDA

  1

  —

  —

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  UVF

  2

  —

  1

  UDA

  1

  —

  —

  357

  Year and affiliation

  A

  B

  C

  PIRA

  —

  —

  3

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  1

  —

  —

  1988

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  UVF

  —

  —

  2

  PIRA

  1

  —

  1

  OIRA

  2

  —

  —

  None

  1

  —

  —

  1989

  UVF

  1

  1

  —

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  PIRA

  —

  —

  1

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  11

  1

  8

  A—Murder

  B—Other

  C—SOSP

  13 years

  Year and affiliation

  A

  B

  C

  1980

  PIRA

  —

  1

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1981

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1982

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  None

  1

  —

  —

  1983

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  UDA

  —

  —

  1

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  OIRA

  1

  —

  —

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  UVF

  2

  —

  —

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  PIRA

  1

  1

  1

  OIRA

  1

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  UDA

  2

  —

  —

  UVF

  3

  —

  1

  PIRA

  —

  —

  1

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  1

  —

  —

  1989

  UVF

  2

  1

  —

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  358

  Year and affiliation

  A

  B

  C

  PIRA

  1

  —

  1

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  1

  —

  —

  Total

  16

  2

  5

  A—Murder

  B—Other

  C—SOSP

  14 years

  Year and affiliation

  A

  B

  C

  1980

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1981

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1982

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1983

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  PIRA

  1

  —

  —

  OIRA

  1

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  UDA

  3

  —

  —

  UVF

  3

  —

  —

  PIRA

  —

  —

  1

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1989

  UVF

  6

  —

  —

  UDA

  4

  —

  —

  PIRA

  1

  —

  1

  OIRA

  1

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  20

  —

  2

  A—Murder

  B—Other

  C—SOSP

  359

  15 Years plus

  Year and affiliation

  A

  B

  C

  1980

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1981

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1982

  UVF

  1

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1983

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  UVF

  1

  —

  —

  1985

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  UVF

  —

  —

  —

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  UDA

  —

  —

  —

  UVF

  1

  —

  —

  PIRA

  —

  —

  —

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1989

  UVF

  4

  —

  —

  UDA

  5

  —

  —

  PIRA

  3

  —

  2

  OIRA

  —

  —

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  15

  —

  2

  A—Murder

  B—Other

  C—SOSP

  Indeterminate sentence prisoners released by affiliation and years served (1 January 1980–31 December 1989)

  Year and affiliation

  Total

  1980

  PIRA

  1

  None

  1

  1981

  PIRA

  2

  UVF

  1

  None

  1

  360

  Year and affiliation

  Total

  1982

  UVF

  1

  None

  6

  1983

  UVF

  1

  UDA

  2

  None

  1

  1984

  UVF

  2

  1985

  UDA

  4

  UVF

  3

  PIRA

  2

  OIRA

  2

  1986

  UDA

  4

  UVF

  2

  OIRA

  3

  PIRA

  4

  None

  2

  1987

  UVF

  9

  UDA

  3

  PIRA

  12

  OIRA

  2

  None

  2

  1988

  UDA

  6

  UVF

  12

  PIRA

  6

  OIRA

  3

  None

  2

  1989

  UVF

  16

  UDA

  9

  PIRA

  11

  OIRA

  1

  None

  2

  Total

  141

  A—Murder

  B—Other

  C—SOSP

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the cost of keeping a prisoner in a prison and other places for the detention of criminals by category of establishment(a) per week and (b) annually in Northern Ireland; and what comparable information is available to him on prisons in (i) Scotland and (ii) England and Wales.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: Prison establishments in Northern Ireland are not categorised in the same way as in Great Britain and direct comparisons are therefore not meaningful. This is mainly because of the additional security measures required in Northern Ireland in relation to custody of large numbers of paramilitary-type prisoners. The average cost of keeping a prisoner in Northern Ireland in 1988–89 was £1,046 per week and £54,406 annually.

  Roads
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the total expenditure each year on maintenance of(a) motorway and trunk roads

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  11989–90

  Motorways

  1·8

  1·7

  1·8

  1·5

  3·3

  Class I and class II roads

  17·2

  16·0

  14·8

  18·5

  21·7

  Other roads

  27·8

  30·3

  32·6

  31£7

  32·6

  1 Estimated

  Present plans are better to meet by spending some £60 million in 1990–91.

  Portavogie Harbour
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to enlarge Portavogie harbour to accommodate the present fishing fleet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: The Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority has no plans to enlarge Portavogie harbour.

  The authority has submitted proposals for extra shelter at Ardglass which could add to capacity there. There are doubts about whether fish stocks can sustain the expansion in the local fleets during the last two years.

  Security Forces (Dwellings)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many dwellings have been searched by the security forces in each year since 1968.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 21 February 1990]: The available information on searches of premises under section 15 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 is as follows:

  Army

  RUC

  year

  Occupied

  Unoccupied

  1984

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1985

  104

  58

  n/a

  1986

  137

  41

  1,818

  1987

  393

  72

  2,474

  1988

  751

  278

  4,136

  1989

  1st quarter

  217

  89

  1,144

  2nd quarter

  115

  79

  559

  Most searches involve both the Army and RUC and are registered in their respective records. Both figures therefore are shown separately since there is an element of double counting.

  Army Helicopter, County Tyrone
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the make, rate of fire calibre and range of the weapon or weapons used by the IRA against the Army helicopter destroyed in County Tyrone recently or as much of such information as is available to him.
  362
  and (b) other roads in each of the last five years; and what are his projections for the current and next calendar or financial year.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This information is not available in the precise form requested. Expenditure details on road maintenance are as follows:

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 23 February 1990]: The incident is under investigation. No further information is available.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what response he has received to his proposals for helping disabled people who are not able to work full time.

  Mr. Scott
  We have sent copies of "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" (Cm. 917) to a wide range of disability organisations and other interested bodies inviting their comments on our proposals to improve the balance and structure of social security help for people with disabilities. We have now received comments from seven organisations and six individuals on our proposals to introduce a disability employment credit for people who are partially capable of work. The Social Security Advisory Committee has also written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State describing our proposals as a significant improvement to the system of benefits for disabled people. The committee particularly welcomed the introduction of a disability employment credit.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to improve disability benefits in order to give assistance with communication costs.

  Mr. Scott
  The Command Paper "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" published on 10 January contains several proposals that will give financial help to disabled people with communication costs. The introduction of an age-related addition for severe disablement allowance will assist many disabled people who have communication needs who have been disabled early in life or at birth. People with communication needs will be eligible for the new disability allowance in the same way as other disabled people. The introduction of a disability employment credit will also help people with communication needs who are partially capable of work. In addition, people who are both deaf and blind will, from April of this year, be able to receive mobility allowance at a rate of £26·25 per week.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the additional numbers of(a) disabled people aged 60 to 79 years and (b) people aged 80-plus years who became entitled to and were awarded (i) income support and (ii) housing benefit as a result of the increases to the premiums introduced in October 1989.
  363
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 23 February at column 937.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of(a) single men, (b) married men, (c) single women and (d) married women who will qualify for each rate of the proposed addition to severe disablement allowance and the number in each category who will not qualify for any addition.

  Mr. Scott
  The available estimates are in the table:

  Men

  Married women

  Single women

  Higher rate

  80,000

  15,000

  65,000

  Middle rate

  10,000

  25,000

  15,000

  Lower rate

  10,000

  25,000

  10,000

  No addition

  2,500

  —

  —

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many officials in his Department are involved in investigating benefit fraud.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Precise figures are not available, but it is possible to estimate the number of full-time equivalent posts on the basis of records of staff time expended on benefit fraud work. In 1988–89, the last year for which figures are available, the number of full-time equivalent posts was 2,940. Benefit savings achieved in 1988–89 were £262 million.

  Charities
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the role played by charities in the provision of welfare benefits.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Charities play no role in the provision of social security benefits. In the income-related benefits, however, we have recently announced improvements which will enable charities to increase the additional help they give to people without affecting their benefits.

  Benefits (Overpayments)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances overpayments of social security benefits are recovered at common law; how many such actions were brought in the last year for which records are available; which benefits were concerned; and how much was recovered.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Certain overpayments are not subject to a determination by the adjudicating authorities under section 53 of the Social Security Act 1986, for example, where duplicate payments of benefit have been made. Where the circumstances indicate that the claimant should have been aware of duplicate payments and taken appropriate action, repayment is sought on the common law principle that money paid under a mistake of fact should not be retained.

  No central records are kept on which an answer to the second part of the question could be based.

  Regulations
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the draft regulations of the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 8 February at column 787.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the amendment to regulation 72 of the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1990 will be referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Social Security Advisory Committee has agreed that the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Regulations 1990 should not be referred to it.

  Family Incomes
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will publish a table showing the level of gross earnings in April 1990 at which(a) a single householder, (b) a married couple, (c) a married couple with two children aged four and six years and (d) a single parent with one child aged three years will lose in housing benefit, assuming full take-up of family credit, average rent and rates and other assumptions, as in his reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay), Official Report, 1 December 1987, columns 565–66;

  (2) if he will publish figures, similar to those in his Department's tax/benefit model table, showing net weekly spending power for a lone mother with two children aged four and six years under the benefit system as uprated in April 1990 and in each of the following circumstances: (a) not working, after one year on benefits, (b) earning £20 a week from part-time working and (c) working full time and earning (i) £60, (ii) £70, (iii) £80, (iv) £90, (v) £100, (vi) £110 and (vii) £120 per week;

  (3) if he will publish tables similar to those in his Department's tax/benefit model table showing net weekly spending power for each of a single-wage married couple (a) with two children aged four and six years and (b) with three children aged three, eight and 11 years, earning (i) £60, (ii) £70, (iii) £80, (iv) £90, (v) £100, (vi) £110, (vii) £1 20, (viii) £130, (ix) £140, (x) £150, (xi) £160, and (xii) £170 under the benefit system as uprated in April.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested will not be available until after the Budget. I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible after the Budget.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide as much information as is available to him regarding the take-up of poll tax benefit, with a local breakdown showing the number of successful applicants in each local area and the range of benefit levels awarded.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Estimates of levels of take-up of community charge benefit can be obtained only when data from the relevant family expenditure survey become available. Figures for the numbers of benefit recipients in each local authority area will be available in due course but it will not be possible to provide a breakdown of the range of benefit levels awarded.
  365
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to give a substantive reply to the question from the hon. Member for Northampton, North about community charge rebate for pensioners, tabled for priority written answer on 15 February.

  Mrs Gillian Shephard
  I have answered my hon. Friend's question today.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the increased cost of community charge rebate if the rebates available to pensioners were unaffected by their savings which would not be taken into account.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 15 February 1990]: Information is not available to make precise estimates, but it seems probable that expenditure on community charge benefit would increase by between £175 million and £225 million if the capital limit were abolished for pensioners and no income was assumed to be derived from their capital holdings.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether there have been any changes to the cash limit of his Department for 1989–90.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The cash limit for class XV vote 7 will be reduced by £87,000 from £1,594,692,000 to £1,594,605,000.

  This reduction represents the Department of Social Security's contribution towards the scheme for providing temporary shelters by certain health authorities, local authorities and voluntary organisations in the event of a spell of exceptionally severe weather to safeguard the health of people sleeping rough in central London, as announced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health on 20 February.

  There will be a corresponding increase on administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social Services, England vote, class XIV, vote 3.

HEALTH

  Northern Ireland Students
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a list of courses at universities and colleges in England for which his Department refuses to pay tuition fees for students from Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are none. If a student successfully competes for a place tuition fees will be paid provided the student fulfils the EC residency requirements of the award scheme.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to establish whether any discrimination exists against Northern Ireland students academically eligible to enrol on courses at universities or colleges in England for which the Department of Health normally pays tuition fees.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. Northern Ireland students can compete for places on courses for which the Department of Health normally pays tuition fees.
  366
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Department of Health pays tuition fees on behalf of students from the Republic of Ireland and other European Community states accepted for courses at universities and colleges in England.

  Mr. Freeman
  Tuition fees are payable on behalf of students from Republic of Ireland and other European Community countries provided they fulfil the EC residency requirements of the award scheme.

  Tranquillisers
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why his Department stopped its grant to the tranquilliser withdrawal group TRANX; and what other similar groups his Department now supports.

  Mr. Freeman
  TRANX was grant-aided under the Department's central funding initiative for drug misuse for the maximum three-year period. Following this, TRANX obtained further funding from local statutory authorities. As TRANX continued to experience funding difficulties negotiations took place with the local statutory authorities but no agreement could be reached whereby funding could continue.

  It is Government policy that support and planning for direct client services should be the responsibility of the local statutory authorities which are best placed to decide, which organisations best fit in with local service plans and budgets. In order to help regions develop such services for drug misuse, substantial amounts of earmarked funding have been allocated each year since 1986–87. This funding totalled nearly £15 million in 1989–90.

  When the North West Thames regional health authority and the London borough grants unit decided not to continue to support TRANX the Department wrote in December 1989 explaining that because of this and given the constraints on central funds no further grant aid was available from the Department.

  The Department is supporting MIND to produce a national directory of local tranquilliser services and public information material on tranquillisers.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of places currently provided by(a) private and (b) voluntary registered residential homes in each local authority area in England.

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of places provided by(a) private and (b) voluntary registered residential homes in each local authority, as at 31 March 1987 is published in "Residential Accommodation for Mentally Ill and Mentally Handicapped People: Number of local authority, voluntary and private homes and places at 31 March 1987 England" and "Residential Accommodation for Elderly and Younger Physically Handicapped People: All Residents in Local Authority, Voluntary and Private Homes Year Ending 31 March 1987 England". Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Tuberculosis Vaccine
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of the supplies of tuberculosis vaccine that are available to children.
  367
  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) on 1 March at columns 304–5.

  Cervical Cytology
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to issue guidance to the Devon family practitioner committee to the effect that women who have had hysterectomies and those who, at their own request, do not wish to be placed on the cervical cytology recall system will not cause their general practitioner to be placed at financial disadvantage with regard to the calculation for new target payments under the new contract for general practitioners.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. The method of calculating target payments for cervical cytology is set down in paragraph 28 of the revised statement of fees and allowances. The population used in the calculations includes all women aged 25 to 64 save those who have had full hysterectomies. The Devon family practitioner committee is well aware of these arrangements.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the authority under which non-medical personnel may request information from general practitioners as to why patients on their lists are not on the cervical cytology recall system.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  HC(88)1, a copy of which is in the Library, states that all women aged 20 to 64 should be invited for cervical screening, unless their general practitioner has indicated that they should be excluded. The detailed operation of computerised call and recall systems for cervical screening is a matter for family practitioner committees on behalf of district health authorities.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are registered as requiring speech therapy in Liverpool; how many currently receive such help; how many speech therapists are employed by the health authority; how many vacancies remain unfilled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Liverpool health authority has had difficulty recruiting qualified speech therapists and is currently examining, with the help of an expert adviser, how the situation can be improved. A report is due at the end of March. For detailed information, the hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Liverpool health authority.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the provision of facilities for sufferers of schizophrenia on Merseyside; how many acute admission wards, day hostels and day hospitals exist for the care of schizophrenics on Merseyside; how many trained psychiatric staff are employed by the health authority; and how many schizophrenics are registered with the health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  We do not hold this information centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Mersey regional health authority.

  AIDS
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will review compensation payments for HIV patients who contracted the AIDS virus as a direct result of blood transfusions made during the course of surgery; what are the latest estimates of the number of patients involved; what would be the total cost if they were treated on a par with haemophiliac HIV victims; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The additional ex-gratia payment made to the Macfarlane Trust enabling lump sum payments of £20,000 to each haemophiliac with HIV was not compensation.

  It recognised the wholly exceptional circumstances which haemophiliacs and their families face, that their insurance, employment and mortgage prospects were already affected by their serious disability, and the hereditary nature of haemophilia can mean that more than one member of a family may be affected. The situation of someone who has contracted HIV as the result of a blood transfusion is, therefore, not directly comparable.

  The position at the end of January 1990, as reported to the communicable disease surveillance centre, is that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland there have been 18 cases of AIDS in people known to have been transfused in the United Kingdom, of whom 13 are known to he dead (not necessarily directly as a result of AIDS). The comparable figure on HIV seropositive transfused in the United Kingdom was 17.

  Compensation is a matter for the courts.

  Durham Health Authority
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for City of Durham for answer on 9 February concerning spending by Durham health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 28 February at columns 226–27.

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total cost involved in the running of the Yorkshire regional health authority headquarters and administration for 1990–91 and for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 25 January 1990]: Figures for headquarters administration expenditure in the Yorkshire region for the years 1983–84 to 1988–89 (the latest year available) are shown in the table:

  Headquarters administration expenditure—Yorkshire region

  £ thousand (cash)

  Regional health authority

  District health authorities

  Total

  1983–84

  4,926

  22,444

  27,370

  1984–85

  5,924

  23,741

  29,665

  1985–86

  7,113

  23,199

  30,312

  1986–87

  7,997

  24,218

  32,215

  1987–88

  8,675

  28,113

  36,788

  1988–89

  8,962

  30,479

  39,441

  Source: Annual accounts of the Yorkshire regional health authority (RHA) and the district health authorities (DHAs) comprising the

  369
  Yorkshire region.

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure on headquarters administration includes all current expenditure on the pay and pay related costs of staff of all disciplines (for recent years including general managers) employed at headquarters levels and their office costs and overheads. It excludes the cost of clerical and secretarial support staff employed in departments at hospital and unit level: such costs are regarded as operational.

  2. Prior to 1 April 1985 some districts had an associated family practitioner committee (FPC). Those authorities' expenditure for the years before that date include small elements relating to FPCs administrative expenses which are not separately identifiable.

  3. Regions are managed in an integrated way and total expenditure by the Yorkshire region is more meaningful than that for the Yorkshire RHA in isolation from the districts within the region.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  BBC External Services
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in the light of developments in eastern Europe, he will review the level of provision of English language teaching of the BBC external services in those countries.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We regularly review with the BBC World Service the hours of English language teaching (ELT) for eastern Europe and other regions. ELT in English to Europe and the Soviet Union increased by 50 per cent. to 26·5 hours a week between 1986 and 1989. In addition, 4·5 hours a week are broadcast in eastern European and Russian vernaculars.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the elections in Nicaragua.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) on 27 February.

  NATO Arms Definitions
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are NATO's current definitions of (i) main battle tanks, and (ii) combat aircraft currently being discussed at the conventional forces in Europe talks in Vienna; and how these differ from NATO's previous definitions.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Copies of the NATO texts tabled on 8 February for a new definition of tanks/armoured combat vehicles and for a revised proposal on combat aircraft are being placed in the Library of the House.

  The new texts reflect western efforts to meet Warsaw pact concerns. On tanks the weight limit has been reduced to capture more vehicles (13 tonnes for tracked tanks; 20 tonnes for wheeled) and a limit of 1,500 has been introduced on heavy armoured combat vehicles (the category into which less heavy but comparably armed vehicles would fall). On combat aircraft a new ceiling of 4,700 has been set (to include medium bombers and land-based naval aircraft); aircraft whose primary function is training have been excluded and an additional 500 limit is set on air defence interceptors. The 30 per cent. sufficiency rule will still apply.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the total withdrawal of Soviet short-range nuclear forces from eastern Europe outside the terms of a multilateral disarmament agreement between NATO and the Warsaw pact.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  NATO has repeatedly called on the Soviet Union to reduce the number of its short-range nuclear missile systems, in which it enjoys a substantial numerical superiority vis-a-vis the West.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the total withdrawal of Soviet armed forces from eastern Europe(a) at the request of east European Governments and (b) as part of the conventional forces in Europe talks in Vienna.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The CFE agreement will set limits on participating states' armed forces in the area of application (from the Atlantic to the Urals). The western treaty text (tabled on 14 December) envisages that it will be for each alliance to determine how these residual forces will be apportioned among its members. Soviet armed forces are already being withdrawn from certain east European countries as a result of bilateral agreements. The future of Soviet forces in the GDR has yet to be agreed. But we could imagine the continued presence of Soviet troops for a transitional period.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to states that are capable of producing chemical weapons having signed a chemical weapons convention before the transitional period for the implementation of a chemical weapons convention can be deemed to have been concluded.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We shall encourage all states to sign and ratify a chemical weapons convention at the earliest possible time after it has been agreed.

  Conventional Force Talks
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the time scale for the resumption of further conventional force reduction talks in Europe upon completion of the current conventional forces in Europe talks in Vienna.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This was set out in the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the Ottawa open skies conference on 12 February.

  He said:
  "I believe that we should launch immediately after the CSCE Summit later this year continuing consultations among all the countries concerned, with a view to new negotiations on an agreed basis as soon as possible. We should focus on both types of dividend—on the political, as well as the military, goals of arms control. Those negotiations should be closely supervised at the political level and involve participation by Ministers, where necessary."

  Warsaw Pact
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the Warsaw pact's armed forces in the Atlantic to the Urals region in the categories of (i) main battle tanks, (ii) other armoured vehicles, (iii) artillery, (iv) anti-tank weapons, (v) combat aircraft and (vi) personnel belong to member states other than the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Updated data on armed forces (which corresponds to agreed definitions) will be exchanged formally on signature of a CFE agreement. Until this is done, it is not possible to say precisely what proportion Soviet forces form of total Warsaw pact forces, but as the figures provided in the NATO booklet "Conventional Forces in Europe: The Facts" show, it is substantial.

  Under the sufficiency rule in the CFE negotiations, individual country holdings will be limited to a fixed proportion of total equipment holdings in the area. Under the West's envisaged 30 per cent. limit, the Soviet Union would be entitled to 60 per cent. of the Warsaw pact entitlements (under the eastern 35–40 per cent. limit, 70–80 per cent.). As this sufficiency rule would take effect after parity, it implies the Soviet Union holds more than that proportion now.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in light of non-proliferation goals set by the European Community, he will make it his policy to make representations to his French counterpart concerning the agreement made on 21 February by France with Pakistan to sell a nuclear plant.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  If the sale to which the hon. Member refers goes ahead, we are confident, in view of the stated French position, that it will be subject to adequate guarantees that no nuclear material can be diverted to non-peaceful uses. Such guarantees would include the application of safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any member state of the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty has notified Her Majesty's Government over its concern with Anglo-French technical collaboration on air-launched nuclear missile systems, in the context of United Kingdom commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty article 1.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. Article 1 of the non-proliferation treaty would be relevant to possible Anglo-French collaboration on an air-launched missile only if that collaboration were to involve the transfer of a nuclear warhead, which it would not.

  Diplomatic Immunity
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have made any representations since May 1979 to any other Government following the violation of diplomatic immunity of an embassy or ambassadorial residence by forces not representing the Government of the state where the embassy was based.
  372
  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  UN Disarmament literature
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department has any commitment to the United Nations for the responsibility of distribution in the United Kingdom and dependent territories of United Nations disarmament literature.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Romania
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to assist:n the provision of books, journals and academic literature to Romania.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Following the destruction of Bucharest university central library during the Romanian revolution, the British Council has agreed to pay for the transport to Romania of more than 250,000 academic books collected from the public and publishers by Professors Deletant, Crampton, Clogg and Pavlovitch.

  Diplomatic Personnel
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requirements are placed on United Kingdom diplomatic personnel based al Her Majesty's embassies abroad with regard to keeping within the law of the state where they are based; and what guidance is given to diplomatic personnel concerning their actions under conditions when the Government of the country in which they are based are removed by a revolution.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In accordance with article 41 of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, staff a missions overseas are expected to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state. Guidance on this point, but not on the specific circumstances of a Government being removed by revolution, was issued to all posts and to staff in London in October 1989.

  HIV
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United States Government concerning that Government's practice of requiring disclosure of the HIV status of visitors to the United States of America.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In January the United Kingdom made an official approach to the United States Department of State on the question of United States immigration policy in relation to people with HIV and AIDS. The United States authorities recognised the difficulties caused by the present rules, which they have undertaken to apply flexibly and sympathetically, but they pointed out that a change in policy would require new legislation by the United States Congress.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice his Department offers to United Kingdom citizens on questioning about their HIV status by United States of America immigration authorities.
  373
  Mr. Sainsbury
  No United Kingdom citizens have sought advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on how to respond to questions regarding HIV status from the United States immigration authorities.

EMPLOYMENT

  Advice Interviews
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether a claimant attending employment service counselling interviews with either(a) a new client adviser, (b) a restart counsellor or (c) a claimant adviser who feels they are being treated unfairly or harshly can ask for the interviewer to be changed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  If a client wishes to see a different counsellor or adviser this can be arranged.

  If no other suitable counsellor or adviser is available the client may see the office manager instead.

  Review Interviews
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether an unemployed claimant at a review interview whom an employment service councillor thinks is refusing suitable employment either before or after the interview and completes a UB195 and UB195A, or his or her representative can ask for and receive copies of both documents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Form UB195 is a report of a claimant who fails to take the chance of a job or training offered by an employment service counsellor. It contains details of the job vacancy or training opportunity offered and the submission to, and decision of, the statutory adjudication officer. Copies of this form are not available to the claimant.

  Form UB195A, which is issued to the claimant as a matter of course, includes an exact copy of the details of the vacancy/training opportunity from the UB195. The UB195A offers space for the claimant to comment on their refusal, to assist the independent adjudicaton officer in deciding whether there was "good cause" for their refusal. Claimants may keep a copy of the UB195A; or retain the original form and submit their comments on a separate sheet of paper. They may, as an alternative, ask the unemployment benefit office for a copy of the UB195A.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will ensure that the operation plans of each TEC are available in the Library; and if he will also place copies in the main libraries of the areas covered by the TECs.

  Mr. Eggar
  The contract between my Department and each TEC will require the publication of a summary of the TEC's corporate and business plans. I shall arrange for these summaries to be placed in the Library as they become available. The contract will also provide that a full copy of the corporate plan must be made available to the public at the registered office of the TEC. TECs will be free to choose whether to place copies of their plans in local libraries.

  Workplace Nurseries
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all workplace nurseries known to him, by county, together with the number of places in each.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This information is not collected, but indications are that the provision of such facilities is growing.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on which occasions and for what reasons the Health and Safety Executive sought outside assistance from Her Majesty's inspectors of mines with reference to health and safety issues raised during construction of the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of mines is an integral part of the Health and Safety Executive, not an outside agency, and is involved as appropriate on health and safety matters relating to the Channel tunnel.

  Radiation
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if, in the light of the Gardner report on radiation risks, he will review current radiation exposure limits at facilities in Scotland licensed to handle radioactive materials;

  (2) if, in the light of the Gardner report on radiation risks, he will review current radiation exposure limits at facilities in England licensed to handle radioactive materials;

  (3) if, in the light of the Gardner report on radiation risks, he will review current radiation exposure limits at facilities in Wales licensed to handle radioactive materials.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 28 February 1990]: The radiation exposure limits for all workers are set out in schedule 1 of the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985. These regulations are based on internationally accepted recommendations from the International Commission on Radiological Protection which are currently being reviewed in the light of revised estimates of risk from radiation.

  On 5 February the Health and Safety Commission published a consultative document inviting comments on additional interim guidance on dose limitation pending receipt of revised international recommendations.

  In view of the importance of the Gardner report it is to be referred to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) for immediate consideration. In addition, HSE, subject to the agreement of the individuals concerned, will be investigating in co-operation with BNFL whether other common factors were relevant in the Sellafield study cases. This may help to identify further measures to protect employees.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Industrial Waste
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the licences for dumping industrial waste including the substances, companies and
  375
  amounts involved which have been (a) submitted to him, (b) submitted to the Oslo commission and (c) approved by him since 1 December 1989 giving the dates in each case.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information is as follows:

  Sterling Organics

  Aqueous residue from preparation of paracetamol 42,000 tonnes.

  Submitted to Oslo Commission: 19 September 1989.

  Application for renewal received: 18 December 1989. Licence approved: 23 February 1990.

  Fisons

  Wash waters from synthesis of Intal—a treatment for asthma and allergies 4,000 tonnes.

  Submitted to Oslo Commission: 19 September 1989.

  Application for renewal received: 18 December 1989.

  Application rejected: 16 January 1990.

  Orsynetics

  Salt solution from manufacture of o-tolyl-biguanide 3,000 tonnes.

  Submitted to Oslo Commission: 5 October 1989.

  Application for renewal received: 14 December 1989.

  Licence approved: 22 February 1990.

  Fine Organics

  Wash waters from synthesis of antibiotic and anti-ulcer medicines 8,000 tonnes.

  Submitted to Oslo Commission: 21 December 1989.

  Application awaited.

  Tate and Lyle

  Chalk solution from sugar refining 30,000 tonnes.

  Submitted to Oslo Commission: 16 February 1990.

  Application awaited.

  I also refer the hon. Member to my written answer of 22 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), Official Report, column 899, in which I stated that it is the Government's intention that none of these wastes will continue to be dumped at sea after the end of 1992.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 4 December 1989,Official Report, columns 105–8, if he will list the licence applications for dumping industrial waste which in 1990 he expects to (a) renew, and (b) refuse; if he will list those for which alternative methods of disposal will be found: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have renewed licences held by Orsynetics and Sterling Organics. I expect to renew licences held by Fine Organics, Tate and Lyle, National Power and ICI. I have refused a licence to Fisons. Other licences will not be renewed if alternative means of disposal of the wastes concerned are available at the time existing licences expire.

  Alternative means of disposal will be implemented for all the wastes concerned. As I stated in my written answer of 22 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) Official Report, column 899, it is the Government's intention that none of these wastes will continue to he dumped at sea after the end of 1992. For several of those licences to be renewed in 1990 an alternative means of disposal is expected to be in place within a year.

  I also expect to renew licences held by British Coal for dumping stone from colleries.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer to the hon.376
  Member for South Shields of 4 December 1989, Official Report, columns 105–8, if he will list the applications for dumping industrial waste which he approved in 1989, listing the substances, quantities and companies involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 4 December (Official Report, columns 105–8), which lists the applications received. All except the solid waste from boric acid production were approved.

  I also refer the hon. Member to my written answer of 22 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) (Official Report, column 899) in which I stated that it is the Government's intention that none of these wastes will continue to be dumped at sea after the end of 1992.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place the details in the Library of the applications for dumping industrial waste to include the chemical components, the amounts involved and the companies involved for(a) wash waters from the synthesis of antibiotic and anti-ulcer medicines and (b) chalk solution from sugar refining.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am arranging to place in the Library copies of the information sent to the Oslo Commission about these wastes.

  I also refer the hon. Member to my written answer of 22 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), Official Report, column 899, in which I stated that it is the Government's intention that none of these wastes will continue to be dumped at sea after the end of 1992.

  Pesticides
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the pesticides which have been reviewed since 16 March 1989; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list those pesticides which are currently being reviewed which are undergoing (a) a full review and (b) a partial review; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will list those pesticides which have been reviewed that have (a) been subject to a full review and (b) been subject to a partial review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The following pesticides approved by my Department have been reviewed by the advisory committee on pesticides:

  Reviews concluded by the ACP before 16 March 1989

  Review

  Amitrole (Aminotriazole)

  Partial

  Aldicarb

  Partial

  Binapacryl

  Full

  Biologicalagents

  Partial

  Bitertanol

  Full

  Cyhexatin

  Partial

  Dinoseb

  Full

  Dinoseb-Acetate

  Full

  Dinoterb

  Full

  DNOC

  Full

  Ethylene Dibromide

  Full

  Maleic Hydrazide

  Full

  Mercury Compounds

  Full

  Persistent Organochlorine Insecticides

  Full

  Synthetic Pyrethroids

  Full

  2, 4, 5-T

  Full

  Triazophos

  Partial

  377

  Reviews concluded by the ACP since 16 March 1989

  Review

  Captafol

  Full

  Daminozide

  Partial

  Dimethoate

  Partial

  Fenbutatin oxide

  Partial

  Fentin acetate

  Partial

  Fentin hydroxide

  Partial

  Iprodione

  Partial

  Reviews currently in progress

  Review

  Alachlor

  Full

  2-aminobutane

  Partial

  Benomyl

  Full

  Bromoxynil

  Full

  Captan

  Full

  Carbendazim

  Full

  2, 4-D

  Full

  Dimeton-s-methyl

  Full

  Demeton-s-methyl-sulphone

  Full

  Diazinon

  Full

  Dichlorvos

  Full

  Dinocap

  Full

  Ferbam

  Full

  Ioxynil

  Full

  Lindane

  Full

  Linuron

  Full

  Mancozeb

  Full

  Maneb

  Full

  Methyl bromide

  Partial

  Mevinphos

  Full

  Monolinuron

  Full

  Nabam

  Full

  Oxydemeton-methyl

  Full

  Propineb

  Full

  Sulfonyl ureas

  Partial

  Tecnazene

  Full

  Thiabendazole

  Full

  Thiram

  Full

  Thiophanate methyl

  Full

  Zineb

  Full

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those pesticides for which a review is planned that will be subject to(a) a full review and (b) a partial review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The advisory committee on pesticides will consider the most appropriate form of review for each active ingredient, listed in the reply given on 11 December,Official Report, column 512.

  Sea Wall Defences
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make an assessment of the adequacy of sea wall defences along the north Wales, Lincolnshire and Somerset coastlines following the extensive flooding from the storms on 25 to 27 February.

  Mr. Gummer
  The state of flood defences, including sea walls, is continually monitored by the responsible authorities, and close liaison is maintained by my river and coastal engineers with authorities, in particular the National Rivers Authority, which undertake most of the works. Increases in grant provision following the public expenditure surveys in 1988 and 1989 resulted from our review, in close consultation with the National Rivers Authority and other responsible authorities, of current and future coastal and flood defence needs.

  On the Lincolnshire coastline, where some £9 million has been invested since 1984 in the improvement of the
  378
  defences between Mablethorpe and Skegness and an accelerated programme of works of the order of £20 million is planned over the next three years, the defences have successfully resisted two recent surge tides.

  On the Somerset coastline the defences, which were constructed following the serious floods of 1981 at a cost of some £16 million, have in general resisted the extreme conditions, although there has been some flooding as a result of the unusual combination of high tide, surge, and wind. Among those locations where flooding has been experienced, schemes at Shirehampton and Pill are already programmed.

  Authorities responsible for defences are assessing the effects of the storms, and we have asked for an early indication of changes to programmes. Grant at rates up to 70 per cent. (rising to 75 per cent. in 1990–91) from my Department will be available for schemes which satisfy our technical, economic and environmental criteria.

  Government responsibility for the north Wales coastline rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  National Fruit Collection
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest position in relation to the proposed move of the national fruit collection from Brogdale to Wye college.

  Mr. Curry
  The transfer of the national fruit collection from Brogdale to Wye college is proceeding on schedule. Wye college is due to take over management of the collection on 1 April, and the detailed arrangements for its transfer and maintenance are being finalised.

  All the rootstocks for the first phase of fruit trees have been obtained and some have been planted. The remainder will be planted as soon as weather and soil conditions permit. Some cuttings of soft fruit have also been taken. The rootstocks will be budded in late July/August and the first fruit trees will be established at Wye in the winter of 1991–92.

  Scotch Whisky
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with representatives of the Scotch whisky industry.

  Mr. Curry
  I have nothing to add to my reply of 8 February 1990,Official Report, column 726.

  Bottled Water
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what responsibilities the food safety directorate has in the analysis of bottled water purity.

  Mr. Maclean
  The responsibility for the routine analysis of bottled water rests with local authorities. The food safety directorate undertakes analysis of food and drink as part of the Government's food surveillance programme or if there is a more general safety concern. The rapid response to the recent problem experienced by Perrier is an example of the latter role.

  Fish Farming
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's policy towards the development of fish farming.

  Mr. Curry
  Our policy is to encourage the development of an efficient fish farming industry within the framework of statutory controls relating to fish disease and environmental considerations.

  Eggs
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many eggs were imported from the continent in 1989.

  Mr. Curry
  The latest figures supplied by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise show that 1,129,347 cases of eggs were imported in 1989, of which 1,109,706 cases came from countries on the European mainland.

  Alar
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now order a full review of alar.

  Mr. Gummer
  The advisory committee on pesticides reviewed consumer safety aspects of daminozide and concluded that the margins of safety are extremely large. Further data would be required for assessment if food uses were to continue.

  Mink Farm
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his replies to the hon. Member for Caerphilly of 22 February,Official Report, columns 896–97, whether there is a mink farm at Stansted in Essex; and if he will make a statement about his method of compiling statistics on the numbers and locations of mink farms.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is a licensed mink farm at Stansted, Essex. Applications for licences to operate mink farms in England are received at the Ministry's divisional offices, which record locations and numbers of licences issued. The other agricultural departments are responsible for compiling statistics relating to farms in their regions. My answer of 22 February, column 897 contained a typographical error; the table showing numbers of mink farms should have shown a total as at 20 February 1990 of 50, not 51.

  Battery Hens
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what area would be required for a caged hen to allow her to perform all natural functions without hindrance; what is the area designated within the battery system per hen; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Recent research has indicated that the activity demanding most space for a single bird (wing flapping) requires a considerably greater area than the minimum space allowance of 450 sq cm laid down in the Economic Community battery hens directive. In the review of the directive which is due to commence this year we will press for the minimum space to be increased.

DEFENCE

  Savings
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has given any recent consideration to possible defence savings.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given at column 596 on 6 February 1990 to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last discussed deployment of short-range nuclear weapons in Europe with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend met his NATO counterparts at the NATO nuclear planning group meeting in Armansil, Portugal on 24–25 October 1989, where the planning group confirmed its long-standing commitment to keep NATO's nuclear forces responsive, survivable and effective across the required spectrum of ranges.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now answer questions seeking to establish the countries in eastern Europe on which British and NATO nuclear weapons are targeted.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no grounds for any departure from the long-established practice of successive Administrations of not commenting on targeting policy.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he had with the United States defence authorities regarding the stockpiling of unassembled nuclear missiles in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Military Sufficiency
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence his Department has on the policy of the Soviet General Staff towards the doctrine of military sufficiency.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have taken careful note of the statements by Soviet leaders on the shift in their military doctrine towards a more defensive posture, and the impact this is having on the structure of their armed forces. The unilateral force reductions and withdrawals from eastern Europe have provided some practical evidence of this shift, as have recent Soviet exercise patterns, although enhancements in the capability of remaining Soviet forces continue. We will continue to keep this under close examination and look forward to a CFE agreement which will bring about further reductions in Soviet forces in Europe.

  Information (Access)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make it his policy to compare the access to information available to hon. Members in respect of the various responsibilities of his Department with the
  381
  equivalent access available to elected representatives in the United States of America and consider widening the scope and detail of the former.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is our policy to make available as much information as possible while preserving the confidentiality essential to national security and the effective working of the Department.

  Aircraft (Alnwick)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any near miss report was made in respect of two Tornado aircraft and a Harrier flying over Alnwick at 14.32 on Tuesday 9 January; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  No such airmiss report has been filed.

  SA80 Rifle
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to make further adaptations to the SA80 rifle.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Modifications have already been trialled and tested, and will be introduced this year into production and as a retrofit.

  Free-fall Bomb
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the parameters of range requirement of any new tactical air-to-surface missile being considered by his Department as a possible successor to the WE177 free-fall bomb.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to comment on the detailed specifications for weapons systems under consideration as possible future replacements for the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether formal consultation procedures exist within NATO for the use of chemical weapons by the United States of America in Europe in time of conflict.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Member on 11 December 1989 at column 526.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether recent assessments by United States intelligence agencies regarding the Soviet stockpile of chemical weapons will lead to any reassessment by his Department of the size of the Soviet stockpile of chemical weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 14 November,Official Report, column 188.

  Forces Levels (Europe)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with reference to the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989," volume 1, pages 46 and 47, what will be the balance of total ground forces(a) in the central region
  382
  and (b) in the region from the Atlantic to the Urals as a result of President Bush's recent proposal to limit the number of United States and Soviet troops to 195,000 on each side being implemented.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A limit of 195,000 for United States and Soviet ground, air and air defence personnel to be stationed in a central area, comprising Belgium, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary and Poland, was agreed in Ottawa earlier this month. I am not aware that either side has yet decided what effect this limit will have on ground forces.

  D Notices
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to introduce any new D notices.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  D notices are not issued by the Secretary of State for Defence but by the defence press and broadcasting committee. I understand that currently there are no proposals for the issue of any new D notices.

  Nuclear Materials (Military Use)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the mutual defence agreement 1959 between the United Kingdom and United States of America on the mutual provision of nuclear materials for military uses is still in force; and what amendments have been made to the agreement since it entered into force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I can confirm that the "Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America for Co-operation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes" of 1958 remains extant.

  The original text may be found in Cmnd. 537 (1958) whilst the amendments—which have generally served to extend the duration of the agreement, provide for the continued supply of materials and take account of developments in the technology being exchanged—may be found in Cmnd. 859 (1959), Cmnd. 4119 (1969), Cmnd. 4384 (1970), Cmnd. 6017 (1975), Cmnd. 7976 (1980) and Cmnd. 9336 (1984).

ENVIRONMENT

  Cheshire Councils (Expenditure)
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will set out a table showing for each year since 1979 the expenditure of Cheshire county council, Macclesfield borough council and Vale Royal borough council in(a) cash terms, (b) constant price terms and (c) cash terms per head;

  (2) if he will publish details for each year since 1979 of the direct revenue grants made to Cheshire county council, Macclesfield borough council and Vale Royal borough council in (a) cash terms, (b) constant price terms and (c) cash terms per head of population.

  Mr. Chope
  The available information is as follows:
  383

  Net current expenditure

  Cash terms (£ million)

  Constant price terms—1989–90 prices1 (£ million)

  Cash terms per head2 (£)

  Cheshire County Council

  1981–82

  283·141

  439·038

  305

  1982–83

  309·508

  447·610

  332

  1983–84

  324·020

  447·698

  347

  1984–85

  340£138

  447·724

  363

  1985–86

  358·189

  447·450

  380

  1986–87

  384·486

  464·651

  406

  1987–88

  422·813

  485·220

  444

  1988–89

  461·458

  493·760

  483

  1989–9033

  488·977

  488·977

  512

  Macclesfield Borough Council

  1981–82

  5·301

  8·220

  35

  1982–83

  5·896

  8·527

  40

  1983–84

  6·465

  8·933

  44

  1984–85

  6·056

  7·972

  40

  1985–86

  6·288

  7·855

  42

  1986–87

  6·923

  8·366

  46

  1987–88

  6·774

  7·774

  45

  1988–89

  7·448

  7·969

  49

  1989–903

  8·320

  8·320

  55

  Vale Royal Borough Council

  1981–82

  4·175

  6·474

  37

  1982–83

  4·276

  6·184

  38

  1983–84

  4·491

  6·205

  40

  1984–85

  4·539

  5£975

  40

  1985–86

  4·896

  6·116

  43

  1986–87

  4·770

  5·765

  42

  1987–88

  5·021

  5·762

  44

  1988–89

  5·206

  5·570

  46

  1989–903

  6·072

  6·072

  54

  1 Using GDP deflator to covert cash values to constant prices.

  2 Using Office of Population Censuses and Surveys mid-year estimates of total population to calculate per capita values.

  3 Budget estimates.

  Direct revenue grants1

  Cash terms £ million

  Constant price terms 1989–90 prices2 £ million

  Cash terms per head3 £

  Cheshire County Council

  1981–82

  163·027

  252·790

  175

  1982–83

  156·280

  226·012

  168

  1983–84

  158·541

  229·282

  170

  1984–85

  162·094

  213·364

  173

  1985–86

  148·348

  185·316

  157

  1986–87

  133·437

  161·259

  141

  1987–88

  140·049

  160·720

  147

  1988–89

  150·041

  160·544

  157

  1989–90

  129·752

  129·752

  136

  Macclesfield Borough Council

  1981–82

  3·010

  4·667

  20

  1982–83

  2·972

  4·298

  20

  1983–84

  3·568

  5·160

  24

  1984–85

  3·214

  4·231

  21

  1985–86

  2·655

  3·317

  18

  1986–87

  3·086

  3·729

  20

  1987–88

  3·109

  3·568

  20

  1988–89

  2·867

  3·068

  19

  1989–90

  2·978

  2·978

  20

  Vale Royal Borough Council

  1981–82

  2·151

  3·335

  19

  1982–83

  2·118

  3·063

  18

  1983–84

  2·328

  3£367

  21

  1984–85

  2·424

  3·191

  22

  1985–86

  2·143

  2·677

  19

  1986–87

  2·099

  2·537

  18

  1987–88

  2·220

  2·548

  20

  384

  Cash terms £ million

  Constant price terms 1989–90 prices2 £ million

  Cash terms per head3 £

  1988–89

  2·094

  2·241

  18

  1989–90

  2·018

  2·018

  18

  1 Comprising block grant and specific and supplementary grants.

  2 Using GDP deflator to convert cash values to constant prices.

  3 Using Office of Population Censuses and Surveys mid-year estimates of total population to calculate per capita values.

  Bradshaw Brook (Sewage Discharges)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many instances of excessive sewage discharge into Bradshaw brook, in the North West water authority area, have been recorded during periods of wet weather, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No records are held of the frequency of operation of storm sewer overflows which primarily act as emergency outlets during periods of heavy rainfall. We have recently brought many of these overflows under the pollution control system for the first time, thereby ensuring that planned programmes of improve-ments will be carried out where necessary. I understand that North West Water Limited is undertaking a major resewerage scheme which should alleviate problems associated with unsatisfactory overflows into the lower Bradshaw brook at Bolton.

  Local Authority Spending
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate local authority spending for 1990–91 per head of population in(a) Westminster, (b) Brent, (c) Wandsworth, (d) Humberside and (e) South Yorkshire.

  Mr. Chope
  I have as yet no firm information on local authority spending in 1990–91.

  Shropshire County Council
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total spending by Shropshire county council during each of the past five years; and what has been the corresponding amount of Government grants.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is as follows:

  Shropshire County Council

  Net current expenditure (£ million)

  Direct revenue Grants1 (£ million)

  1985–86

  141·981

  81·087

  1986–87

  157·148

  88·607

  1987–88

  173·019

  93·063

  1988–89

  190·483

  98·747

  1989–902

  201·141

  95·655

  1 Comprising block grant and specific and Supplementary grants.

  2 Budget estimates.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether a person with dual sensory impairment, such as deaf-blindness, but mentally alert, can
  385
  gain exemption from the poll tax; what are the procedures for claiming exemptions; whether homes for such people qualify residents for the collective community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Disability will qualify an individual for exemption from the community charge if it involves severe mental impairment as defined in the legislation. People with other disabilities may qualify for rebates and transitional relief, the detailed rules of which contain special thresholds and allowances for disabled people. People resident as patients in NHS hospitals or in residential care homes, nursing homes, mental nursing homes or certain hostels (again, as defined in the legislation) are exempt from the community charge. Exemption is claimed by giving the registration officer details of the ground on which it is sought. The collective community charge applies only to the residents of buildings where turnover is so frequent that it appears to a registration officer that individual registration and collection of the charge would be impracticable.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the rebates and reductions obtainable under the community charge system that are in real terms(a) more generous and (b) less generous than the rebates and reductions currently obtainable under the domestic rate system.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: Rebates of, and reductions in, the community charge are available through community charge benefit and transitional relief. There is no rates equivalent of transitional relief, which is therefore a generous addition to the existing provisions. Community charge benefit is based on the same income and capital criteria as housing benefit, under which rate rebates are paid; but the rate at which benefit is withdrawn as income rises is lower, which means that community charge benefit is available at higher levels of income, and is higher for any given level of income. There is no equivalent under the community charge of rate rebates under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978; but those rebates were intended to prevent disabled people having to pay higher rates as a result of necessary alterations which increased the rateable value of their home. They are not necessary under a system which is not based on property values.

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has received about conflict between local authorities' duties under the Coast Protection Act 1949 and the Nature Conservancy Council's responsibilities for sites of special scientific interest in respect of coastline protection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  While I am aware of a number of cases where the interests of nature conservation have seemed at variance with the need for coastal protection under the Coast Protection Act 1949, I am pleased to be able to report that these are generally resolved by agreement between the parties involved.

  Tenants' Choice
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to promote tenants' choice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Tenants' choice came into force in April last year and gives public sector tenants the opportunity to seek a new landlord for their homes. Many tenants are currently looking at the possibilities with the Housing Corporation. The spur of competition has also encouraged many local authorities to seek to improve the service they provide to their tenants.

  We propose, with the Housing Corporation, to provide local publicity to raise awareness of the possibilities under tenants' choice in areas where it is relatively low. Advertisements will be placed in local newspapers and with local radio stations operating from the following centres: Manchester, Bradford, Huddersfield, Halifax, Leeds, Birmingham, Leicester, Nottingham, Bristol, Plymouth and Southampton. These areas were selected on the advice of the Housing Corporation. The publicity will run for three weeks from mid-March and will cost approximately £130,000. We are considering further publicity later this year in other areas where awareness of tenants' choice is currently low.

  The Department, with the Housing Corporation, commissioned four videos which explain tenants' choice in detail. They should be completed by the end of March at a cost of approximately £120,000. They will be available to tenants through the Housing Corporation which has power to provide information, advice and assistance to tenants who are interested in tenants' choice.

  Contracts for the publicity and the videos were awarded according to the conditions laid down by the Government information service.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce tenants' choice to Nottingham council estates; if he has made any estimate of the cost of such proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list those areas of the United Kingdom to be targeted in his Department's campaign on the tenants' choice provisions of the Housing Act 1988;

  (2) what budget has been set for his Department's campaign on the tenants' choice provisions of the Housing Act 1988; and whether any contracts have been awarded to outside bodies for preparation of such a campaign;

  (3) whether he has any plans to jointly launch a campaign with the Housing Corporation to promote the tenants' choice provisions of the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), today to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many inquiries have been received from tenants or groups of tenants concerning tenants' choice.
  387
  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: At 30 January 1990 the Housing Corporation had had 766 inquiries from tenant groups or individual tenants.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the 1990–91 revenue support grant entitlements of all local authorities in Kent in the same format as in the reply given to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing by the Secretary of State for Wales on 22 February,Official Report, columns 862–3.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The entitlements for revenue support grant (ie after allowing for safety net adjustments) for the local authorities in Kent are listed in the following table:

  Name

  Revenue support grant entitlement £

  Ashford

  11,426,620

  Canterbury

  16,979,259

  Dartford

  12,254,297

  Dover

  14,848,572

  Gillingham

  13,255,746

  Gravesham

  12,357,886

  Maidstone

  16,868,067

  Rochester Upon Medway

  20,461,365

  Sevenoaks

  11,966,395

  Shepway

  11,640,754

  Swale

  16,228,029

  Thanet

  18,493,602

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  13,492,043

  Tunbridge Wells

  12,060,160

  Total for all districts

  202,332,795

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales in his reply on 22 February gave figures for the revenue support grant entitlements for Welsh county councils. It is not possible to calculate such figures for English county councils as although revenue support grant is paid to district councils in support of services provided by both the district and county council, there is no amount separately identified as being attributable to the county council.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his written reply dated 14 February,Official Report, column 222, concerning the amount of poll tax payable in 1990–91 per adult for each region and so on, (1) whether he will provide in each case the amount of the average rate bill per adult as a percentage of the median full-time adult male earnings;

  (2) whether he will provide in each case the amount of the long-run community charge per head as a percentage of the median full-time adult male earnings.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 28 February 1990]: I have no information on median full-time adult male earnings in 1990–91.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the relevant notional amount for each charging and precepting authority which is the amount which would have been calculated by each charging and precepting authority in relation to the financial year 1989–90 on the assumption that 1989–90 was a chargeable year; and if he will show what other assumptions he has made in arriving
  388
  at the relevant notional amount, using his powers under part VIII of the Local Government and Finance Act 1988 for community charge capping.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: I have made it clear that I shall not hesitate to cap authorities which insist on budgeting excessively for 1990–91, but it would not be right for me to speculate on any aspects of the operation of any capping scheme which might be needed.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of non-domestic properties in each English region and in Wales will be treated as small properties for the purposes of the business rate transitional arrangements.

  Mr. Chope
  The percentage of non-domestic properties in each English region and in Wales with a rateable value in the draft local rating lists which are to take effect on 1 April 1990 of £500 or more which have a value below the thresholds of £15,000 in Greater London and £10,000 elsewhere is as follows:

  Percentage

  Northern

  80

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  79

  East Midlands

  77

  East Anglia

  73

  Inner London

  62

  Outer London

  74

  Rest of the South East

  65

  South West

  76

  West Midlands

  76

  North West

  79

  Welsh Valleys

  83

  Wales, except Valleys

  82

  All properties

  74

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide the fullest breakdown available to him of the 1990–91 standard spending assessment figures for Tonbridge and Mailing of £5·364 million and £0·466 million in his reply to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing of 26 February,Official Report, column 22.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The sub-components of the service elements of the standard spending assessment for Tonbridge and Malling are:

  £ million

  Other services—district level

  5·328367

  Other services—county level

  0·060166

  Flood defence

  0·133639

  Interest receipts

  -0·158585

  Total other services

  5·363586

  Debt charges

  0·696891

  Capital expenditure charge to revenue account

  0·043102

  Interest on capital receipts

  -0·273607

  Total capital financing

  0·466386

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 1990–91 standard spending assessments per head of population, before safety net. adjustments, for each borough and district council in Kent in descending order of magnitude.
  389
  Mr. David Hunt
  There is no safety net adjustment to standard spending assessments. The standard spending assessment per adult for each charging authority in Kent is shown in the table:

  1990–91 Standard Spending Assessments per Adult

  SSA per adult £/ adult

  Thanet

  106

  Rochester upon Medway

  105

  Gillingham

  99

  Dover

  95

  Shepway

  94

  Canterbury

  92

  Gravesham

  92

  Ashford

  90

  Swale

  90

  Maidstone

  88

  Tunbridge Wells

  88

  Dartford

  84

  Tonbridge and Malling

  76

  Sevenoaks

  73

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the approximate public expenditure cost in 1990–91 of limiting the amount that ratepayers and ratepayer couples in England need pay in community charge to £3 a week over their 1989–90 rates bill, through the transitional relief scheme to individuals that he announced in October 1989, if local authorities in England spend(a) not more than 10 per cent. above their standard spending assessment and (b) not more than 15 per cent. above their standard spending assessment.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The transitional relief scheme gives relief based on the lower of the assumed charge or the actual charge. If the scheme operated in the way described, relief in many authorities would therefore be based on actual charges rather than assumed charges. I have no firm information on planned spending in most authorities and I am therefore unable to estimate the cost of the schemes described.

  International Garden Festival Site (Liverpool)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the future of the international garden festival site, Liverpool.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Merseyside development corporation is currently negotiating terms for the disposal of the site to a private company for development of leisure facilities.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond),Official Report, 23 February, column 929 (a) how many copies of the consultation paper on the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980 issued on 25 January, to which he makes reference, have been published, (b) to which organisations and individuals the consultations have been distributed and (c) when he expects to collate and analyse comments received on the paper.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) 1,800 copies of the consultation paper have been printed;

  390

  (b) the organisations to which the paper was initially distributed are listed in the annex to the Department's consultation letter of 25 January, copies of which have been placed in the Library. Since then copies of the consultation paper have been sent on request to 330 organisations and individuals; and

  (c) comments on the proposals in the consultation paper have been invited by 30 April 1990 and I will consider those received as soon as possible after that date.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond),Official Report, 23 February, column 930, if he will make it his policy to ask Her Majesty's chief inspector of pollution to compile a list of all firms known to (a) have imported toxic wastes since 1979 and (b) be currently importing toxic wastes.

  Mr. Trippier
  There is no central record of firms known to have imported toxic waste since 1979. From November 1988, information arising from the consignment notes required under the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988, which includes the identity of importers of waste for disposal in Great Britain, has been collected by HMIP and the waste disposal authorities concerned.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any further information from the United States authorities or from any other source concerning the problem of toxic waste in Wath upon Dearne.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: I will write to the hon. Member.

  Sewage
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the amounts of sewage that were returned to land during the recent coastal storms; and what steps have been taken to decontaminate areas polluted by such sewage.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is unlikely that more than minimal amounts of sewage were returned to land during the recent storms, and consequently there should have been no pollution of land requiring treatment. Any decontamination which might have been needed would be a matter for local authorities.

  Water Charges
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he took into account, other than those from the West Kent water company, before he announced his proposals for that company's K factor on 7 February.

  Mr. Trippier
  Under section 14(5) of the Water Act 1989 the requirement for the Secretary of State to consider representations before determining a company's initial K factor relates only to representations by the company.

  Change of Landlord Applications
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications have been received by public sector landlords under section 96 of the Housing Act 1988.
  391
  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) on 27 February 1990, to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), Official Report, column 174.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many preliminary procedures under part IV of the Housing Act 1988 have commenced.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: At present, 20 tenant groups have been introduced to potential tenants' choice landlords by the Housing Corporation.

  Fifty-eight other tenant groups are involved in preliminary discussions with the Housing Corporation.

  Flood Protection
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the 1990–91 standard spending assessment for flood protection for the London borough of Westminster calculated on the same basis as the 1990–91 levy from the National Rivers Authority.
  392
  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: The flood defence element of the standard spending assessment for Westminster is £7·271 million. I have no information for Westminster on the 1990–91 levy from the National Rivers Authority.

  Palace of Westminster
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make it his policy to floodlight the river frontage of the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 28 February 1990]: The river frontage of the Palace of Westminster is floodlit during the summer recess only, mainly because at other times the bright lights would disturb those working in the rooms on that side of the building.

  I have no plans to change the current practice.